Is voter fraud a significant issue in Iowa?
Related Stories
A voter shows his driver's license at a Madison, Miss., precinct, Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2012. (AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis)
A general election that went off with hardly a hitch hasn’t changed Iowa Secretary of State Matt Schultz’s determination to clean up voter registration rolls.
Now that the election is over, Schultz plan to resume efforts to root out voter fraud as soon as a Polk County District Court judge lifts a temporary injunction preventing him from removing ineligible Iowans from voter registration rolls.
“My position hasn’t changed: If you’re not a citizen you shouldn’t be voting,” the first-term Republican said. “It’s my job to protect the integrity of the vote. If every vote really does count, then it’s important for us to protect that.”
Do you support Schultz’s efforts? Do you think voter fraud is a significant issue in Iowa?
The the American Revolutionary war against the imperialist English, there was an outcry “No Taxation Without Representation”. I believe that is a valid concern, and as far as I’m concerned any Iowa resident who pays any taxes to the state of Iowa (Property, Sales, or Income) is fully entitled to vote whether they are citizens or not. And the suppression of the rights of criminals to vote is another serious moral defect in our state. In a democratic republic everyone is entitled to vote. Secretary of State Matt Shultz should be impeached for his partisan over-zealous efforts to suppress the rights of voters in Iowa. He is the real problem.
Iowa has had a long history of increasing voter access with early voting, no excuse needed absentee ballots, same day voter registration, and similar voter friendly initiatives. Iowa also has a reputation for running honest elections.There is not a breath of a hint that voter or election fraud has ever been a problem in this state or that it ever has been.
So what is Matt Schultz’s problem? A nearly 70% voter turn out in 2012? The fact that early voting effectively prevents those nasty negative last minute surprises so beloved by Karl Rove and others of his ilk? The fact that Obama won Iowa? The fact that Matt Schultz has no idea what his job is and couldn’t do it even if he did know?
I’ll give him a hint. Whatever else his job might be, it’s not standing at the polling place door with an ax handle
It’s not a problem in Iowa or the nation and I have to wonder why Matt Schultz and Governor Branstad want to make it a problem?
Still waiting for some reasonable discussion on why not clean up the voter rolls. The proccess outlined is very lenient. Notification is mailed out to inform the voter that the state has found cause to drop them from the rolls of eligible voters. The person than can respond and ask the state to proof their case. This is a simple straight forward process that has no potential to limit any qualified person from voting.
As far as convicted felons being required to apply for the right to vote after they have served their time. That to is a reasonable requirment. IF……If some think their rights should automaticly be restored, that would include the right to keep and bear arms, correct?
Mr Williamson, do you have any evidence that the voter rolls need the kind of cleaning up that Schultz was going to do until a Polk County District Court judge stopped him.
Running elections is the job of the county auditors and there is absolutely no indication that any of our 99 county auditors are in the least bit remiss
“If some think their rights should automaticly (sic) be restored, that would include the right to keep and bear arms, correct?”
I have no problem with that….assuming the person was not convicted of a weapons-related charge.
I also have no problem with people in prison retaining the Right to vote…I don’t see any good reason why that Right should be abridged.
The Judge sets the sentance and unless the Judge puts qaulifications about guns or anything else then full rights should be restored.
Why did the state find couse? All it takes is some jerk telling the county attorney they think something is wrong about a voter. So notification starts. Make the one who challenges liable for prosicution and then we will see how many voter froud cases there are.
If you want to see how the billionares are planing to steal the middle class blind check out this site.https://www.fixthedebt.org/ceo-council
“The Judge sets the sentance and unless the Judge puts qaulifications about guns or anything else then full rights should be restored.”
Wrong. The judge can only do what the laws passed by the legislature and signed by the gov. direct. In plain language that means the people thru their legislature decide if felons can vote. Maybe you can get Gov, Gronstal to pass a law that allows all felons to vote while still in prison.
I don’t think having to respond to the state in order to maintain your right to vote is lenient at all.
As for waiting for reasonable discussion, I think we’re all waiting for Matt Schultz to get around to that.
http://iowavoters.org/2010/09/15/schultz-ignorant-about-voter-rolls/
When restoring voting rights, the right to bear arms is another process and is seperate from restoring the right to vote and hold office.
The right to vote should not be made contingent on anything other than citizenship and age 18. The right to bear arms is modified by the phrase “well regulated.”—read the Amendment—and can be denied on the basis of past behavior. The right to vote is absolute and should never be taken away for any reason. And especially not as a punishment.
Absolute? That of course is pure fabrication and has no constitutional basis. Run against Schultz on the promise to allow felons to vote without conditions, let the people tell you how wrong you are.
Williamson
The right to vote is absolute? You said “That of course is pure fabrication and has no constitutional basis”
Amendment XIV: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”
The right to vote is assumed as the basic right of citizenship, implied in the Constitution and expanded in the Amendments and in court rulings to guarantee that right to people who had been denied that right by custom, not by law.
“The right to vote is assumed as the basic right of citizenship, implied in the Constitution and expanded in the Amendments and in court rulings.”
Assumed (insert joke here) implied,?!, expanded, court rulings.
Thats a long way from absolute.
How about “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” That statement comes with no qualifiers or weasel words, (assumed?)
Just admitt you spouted of about something you dont understand and move on.
Bill, you make the mistake of ignoring the qualifiers yourself. The full text of the Second Amendment (ratified) reads:”A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” See, right there in the beginning….qualifiers.
Now, we can argue what the 2nd means – and we do – but no Right is absolute.
So, please do try again….this time with some thinking involved.
Williamson,
Article I Sections 2, 4, 5 deal with the election of members of the House and Senate. Article II Section 1 with the election of the president.
It is difficult to imagine an election without voters.
Also, Amendment XIV Section 2, Amendment XV, Amendment XVII, Amendment XIX, Amendment XXIII, Amendment XXIV
Voting Rights Act 1965 and so on and so forth
(insert joke here)
Amendment II grants us the right to have a National Guard aka “well regulated Militia”
I take it that you don’t believe the People have the right to vote, but you do believe that the People have the right to shoot each other.
Makes a whole lot of sense.
Joe that was my point, please explain to MS Bell that the silly notion of absolue rights exist only in her mind.
Ms Bell
yes voting is mentioned in the federal constitution, but is regulated by the States. Because there on NO federal elections.
The voting rights act of 1964 is added to the long list……of federal legislation that infringes on the power of States. not much I can do about that.
The 2cnd amendment has nothing to do with the National Guard. The National Guard is a creation by act of congress and has nothing to do with the militia. The NG is voluntary. the militia is not.Numerous court rulings have this settled and these small points again expose huge holes in basic civics knowledge
I have never said qualified citizens should not be allowed to vote and people do not have the right to murder others by gunshot. There are laws aginst that.
My point is… you pick and choose which rights you think people deserve. Its not you choice. The right to keep and bear arms as at least as important as the right to vote, and considering the real purpose for the 2cnd amendment, is a critical element in ensuring the right to vote.
Actually, Joe Sutler, the right to vote is absolute if you want to call a political system democratic. By definition. No vote, no democracy.
As for the Second Amendment,
“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
Mao Tse Tung, Selected Works Vol II “Problems of War and Strategy”
Ms Bell why do you keep saying auditing the voting rolls are denying the right to vote. It is not true. It is normal to have a difference of opinion on philosophies, but making up false accusations doesnt help support your position, which near as I can tell is anyone that can obtain a ballot gets to vote. In the democracy you speak of your elected representatives can institute your system. Until then the Sect. of State is just doing the job he holds through the democratic process. If you dont like him vote him out. Problem solved.
Nice to know your mentor is Mao. Not Surprising since you share the same denial of the existence of Jesus. But to the essence of the quote. the threat of force is anathema to political power. With force, you dont need political power. I’m betting you think the ruler of North Korea has political power………..He doesnt.
Williamson,
You posted “yes voting is mentioned in the federal constitution, but is regulated by the States. Because there on NO federal elections”
Article I Section 4: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations”
As for there being “NO federal elections”, I think most people would be very surprised to learn that the elections we hold to choose our elected representatives at the federal level are not federal elections.
As for the National Guard, there’s this from Wikipedia:
“The National Guard traces its history to the establishment of three militia regiments by the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony on 13 December 1636. . . . The term “national guard” was not used at that time; it was first coined in the 1790s by the Marquis de Lafayette as a description of anti-royalist French Revolutionary citizen forces. . . .The National Guard was established as a federally funded reserve component of the nation’s armed forces on 21 January 1903 with the Militia Act of 1903 under Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S. Code.”
Bill, you explain to Roberta anything you wish…not my job to be your errand boy. As for which Right trumps another Right, we’ve been over that….it’s all a matter of discussion and debate, a moving target which changes over time and circumstance. The courts have ruled…and ruled again, and again…and again. There is no one interpretation of the Constitution(s) (states have ‘em, too), no one-time-snapshot-of-what-is-and-can-never-change. There was no ‘f-bomb’ considered in the First Amendment, no ‘cop killer’ fully automatic weapon considered in the Second, no FLIR considered in the Fourth….etc. Times change, and we change with it. The fundamentals stay the same, the application incorporates new data.
Roberta, the Right to vote is in no way absolute. My 14-year-old cannot vote. Incarcerated felons cannot vote. In Iowa, adjudicated mentally incompetents cannot vote. That’s how things *are*. How they *should be* is up for debate.
To both of you: I give less than a rat’s buttocks what Mao says. Irrelevant to the discussion. Both your points may have merit in the discussion of how we proceed with our conversation, but not in any hard-and-fast rule. You both are great examples of what is right and what is wrong with our current state of affairs. You’re so busy trying to beat each other that neither of you seem willing to respectfully share your ideas, listen to each other’s position, critique each premise, and move our country forward. It doesn’t help that this forum is “moderated’ poorly. It doesn’t help that the questions posited are mostly inane or useless (might as well ask what color to paint the dining room). It doesn’t help that neither side has to face the other, own up to their own shortcomings, acknowledge each other’s positives, etc. Putting a face on an idea might just help folks get along better. Perhaps The Gazette should host a workshop/forum where folks can have a cuppa and a nosh and learn about each other…the perspectives might make more sense and we’d have less fear/more acceptance of “the other”…maybe Jeff Tecklenburg would consider such an event.
Mea culpa. I participate obnoxiously at times as well. My bad.
Williamson,
You posted “auditing the voting rolls are denying the right to vote. It is not true”
It is in this case. It’s the timing thingy. On the basis of no evidence, Schultz insisted on a massive audit right before a major election thus interfering with the ability of county officials to prepare for that election
No Iowa Secretary of State has ever done such a thing or ever felt that there was a need.
As for waiting until the next election to voice opinions about what Matt Schultz is doing, short answer is no.Just being elected to office doesn’t give elected officials a blank check to do whatever they please. Democracy is an on going thing and involves more than just voting.
Mao is my mentor? But I’m the one who is for gun control and limiting the Second Amendment to the People’s right to have a militia aka National Guard. You’re the one who posted “the real purpose for the 2cnd amendment, is a critical element in ensuring the right to vote”.
You also posted “The voting rights act of 1964 [sic] is added to the long list……of federal legislation that infringes on the power of States”.
Interesting. Especially considering why the Voting Rights Act was passed. It was voter suppression in the former Confederate States enforced by terrorism (the Klan) and jim crow. States Rights was the excuse used by people who really did agree with Mao Tse Tung
You may not be old enough to remember Mississippi Freedom Summer but I am. The Right of the People to vote, to have a say in the decisions that affect our lives, shall not be infringed because We the People will not let it happen.
Joe,
Where did you get the idea I wanted 14 year olds to vote.
The standard is set in the Constitution in the 14th, 15th, 19th, 23rd, 24th and 26th Amendments. There is no Amend Section A denying the right to vote to stupid people, insane people, old people, people in debt, or even people in prison. Citizens cannot be arbitrarily denied the right to vote nor can the government attempt to suppress the vote by imposing undue hardship or unreasonable standards. That’s about as absolute as you can get in this world.
As for getting to know Mr Williamson over a cuppa and maybe getting to know him as a human being, sorry but I think I’ll pass on that
Joe I cant respectfully consider positions that have no foundation. I Cant dialoge with a person that prattles on about ‘absolute’ rights. I cant compromise on settled constitutional law. How do I consider the Idea that the people cannot deny convicted felons access to the ballott box? When the constitution is silent on the point? How do I take serious a person that quotes the constitutional amendment prohibiting poll taxes, and yet is blind to the evidence, that it took a constitutional amendment to to eliminate the poll tax? Blind to the fact that if voting is an absolute right, a simple judicial decree would have sufficed?
In the end, can anyone take a person serious that equates every citizen that practices their constitutional rights, as moraly equivilant to Mao?
NO.
That person has earned derision and mockery, nothing more
Williamson, you’re the one who keeps referring to foundational documents and insisting that it is the People who determine stuff:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”
“We the People of the United States . . . .”
If We the people have no voice in who governs us or how, if we have no vote, no right to petition, then none of this makes any sense.
That the specifics of the right to vote had to be codified into law does in no way negate the fact that if we have no vote we have no voice we have no democracy.
That said, if our vote is taken away we have three options.
1) We can go through the courts, we can petition the government, we can use the Law to protect and maintain that specific unalienable right. In that sense the right to vote is absolute. The downside is that this option can be very slow. It took a century for the federal government to finally step in and enforce, through the Voting Rights Act, the Thirteenth Amendment in all states
2) or we can resort to what some conservatives have referred to as the “Second Amendment” solution. In other words, we can follow Mao’s dictum that “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” Given that the government has much bigger guns than any of the rest of us, I’m not sure how viable this option actually is
3) or we can sit there and do nothing and let this or that faction take away our rights.
This last election, with its court cases, law suits, and long lines of people waiting for hours to vote is a clear indication that we the People are not going to sit there quietly while that fundamental right, the right to vote in a democracy, is taken away from us.
Now do you believe in those foundational documents you keep referring to or don’t you
Ms Bell you invent an inane premise then blame others for promoting it.
NO ONES right to vote has been limited.
So now that I have cleared that up
The entirety of your last missive is your invention. NOT mine. You defend it.
With regard to deliberate voter suppression on the part of the Republican Party and elected Republican officials, this is but the latest scandal:
Palm Beach Post, 11/29/2012
“Former Florida GOP leaders say voter suppression was reason they pushed new election law”
“A new Florida law that contributed to long voter lines and caused some to abandon voting altogether was intentionally designed by Florida GOP staff and consultants to inhibit Democratic voters, former GOP officials and current GOP consultants have told The Palm Beach Post”
What inane premise did I invent? And why do you assume that positioning yourself as your own authority is going to convince anyone of anything?