whiterock said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's been applied in court but never directly challenged, mainly because actual voting by noncitizens is so vanishingly rare. To enforce a ban preemptively, as this law does, would cause much more widespread problems. Here are a few examples of what happened with a similar law (later held unconstitutional) in Kansas.

Quote:

---

Plaintiff Donna Bucci is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas and over 18 years old. She was born in Baltimore, Maryland. Ms. Bucci has been employed at the Kansas Department of Corrections for the last six years. She is a cook in the prison kitchen on the 3:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. shift. She is provided with limited time off, and must provide two-weeks' notice to use it. In 2013, Ms. Bucci applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the DOV in Sedgwick County, Kansas. The driver's license examiner did not tell Ms. Bucci that she needed to provide proof of citizenship, and did not indicate that she lacked any necessary documentation. When she left the DOV, she believed she had registered to vote. Later, she received a notice in the mail informing her that she needed to show a birth certificate or a passport to become registered to vote. It did not include information about how to pursue the hearing process in K.S.A. 25-2309(m). Ms. Bucci does not possess a copy of her birth certificate or a passport. She cannot afford the cost of a replacement birth certificate from Maryland and she credibly testified that spending money to obtain one would impact whether she could pay rent. Ms. Bucci's voter registration application was canceled for failure to provide DPOC. She could not vote in the 2014 election, but was able to vote in the 2016 election by operation of the preliminary injunction. Ms. Bucci first learned of the alternative hearing procedure when defense counsel informed her of it during her deposition in this case. She testified that it would be hard for her to even participate in a telephonic hearing because she is not allowed to use her cell phone on a work break.

Plaintiff Charles Stricker is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas, and over 18 years old. He was born in Missouri and has lived in Kansas since late 2013, after a period of living in Chicago. Prior to living in Chicago, Mr. Stricker lived in Kansas and was registered to vote in Kansas during that time. He works as a hotel manager in downtown Wichita. Mr. Stricker applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the Sedgwick County DOV in October 2014. He was told that he had insufficient documentation, and a clerk provided him with a list of documents he needed. Mr. Stricker was attempting to register on the last day of registration before an election, it was so important to him to become registered that he took the day off work to accomplish it. Mr. Stricker rushed home and "grabbed every single document that I could and started shoving them into a file folder to try to get back before the DMV closed," including his birth certificate. He made it back to the DOV in time to complete his application, and recalls telling the clerk that he wanted to register to vote. The DOV clerk did not tell him that he needed any further documentation to register. The clerk printed a small receipt for Mr. Stricker and explained to him that it would be his temporary driver's license until he received his license in the mail. He asked the clerk if there was anything else he needed to do, including whether he needed a voting card. The clerk told him nothing more was necessary. He believed that he was registered to vote.

Mr. Stricker attempted to vote in the 2014 midterm election. He presented his driver's license to the poll worker, but she could not find a record of his registration. He was given a provisional ballot to fill out at an open table with another voter. Mr. Stricker testified that he was confused and embarrassed by the experience. Election day was the first time Mr. Stricker learned that he was not registered to vote. He testified that he learned about the DPOC law sometime later through a press report and wondered if it could explain why he was not allowed to vote. He does not recall receiving any notices from Sedgwick County asking him to provide proof of citizenship.

In 2015, Mr. Stricker's voter registration application was canceled in the ELVIS system. His registration was reinstated by operation of the preliminary injunction on June 22, 2016. At some point in advance of the November 2016 election, Mr. Stricker attempted to check his registration status online and by calling the Sedgwick County election office. The person with whom he spoke told him that it was unclear whether he would be able to vote in the upcoming election because there were legal issues that were still up in the air. When he checked online, there was no record of his registration. On October 26, 2016, the Sedgwick County Election Office sent Mr. Stricker a "Notice of Voter Registration Status." It states:

This notice is to inform you that you have been granted full voter registration status in Kansas and that you are qualified to vote in all official elections in which voters in your precinct are eligible to participate. According to Kansas Statutes Annotated 25, 2309(l), any person registering to vote for the first time in Kansas on or after January 1, 2013, must provide evidence of United States citizenship along with the registration application in order to be granted full registration status. Our records indicate that you submitted a voter registration application during the above-mentioned time period, but you did not provide evidence of your U.S. citizenship. We have since received information from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's Office of Vital Statistics indicating that you have a Kansas birth certificate on file. Based on that determination, your registration status is deemed complete, and we have granted you full voter registration status.

This notice was signed by Tabitha Lehman, the Sedgwick County Election Commissioner. Ms. Lehman testified that, despite Fed. R. Evid. 615 being invoked at the beginning of trial, she read media reports about the trial, including reports of Mr. Stricker's testimony. She testified that ELVIS records indicate Mr. Stricker is active and "fully registered," and that after reviewing his file prior to her testimony, she believes that the notice he received erroneously referenced his Kansas birth certificate, when in fact his citizenship document was in the DOV's database. She testified that in October 2016, just prior to the election, her office had not updated the generic notice sent to applicants whose DPOC was verified by the county to include the DOV database check, a policy that had changed in May 2016. Therefore, between May 2016 when the DOV policy went into effect, and the 2016 election, Sedgwick County--the second largest county in the State--was apparently sending out erroneous and confusing notices to individuals stating that citizenship was confirmed through the department that maintains Kansas birth certificates, when in fact that was not true.

Since the DPOC law was passed, 6 individuals have applied for a hearing under 25-2309(m) with the State Election Board. One of these individuals, Ms. Jo French, lost her birth certificate after moving several times. She testified about the lengthy and burdensome process of registering to vote without a citizenship document. Ms. French's many encounters with the SOS's office led her to characterize her relationship with former-Deputy SOS Eric Rucker as a friendship. She testified that she hoped her testimony would make Defendant "look good." But her testimony contradicted Defendant's position that the DPOC requirement is not burdensome. As she testified, Ms. French's first of many hurdles was to pay $8 for the State of Arkansas to search for her birth certificate to prove that it did not exist, even though she already knew did not exist because she had requested it twice before. Second, she had to collect documents with the help of several other people--her baptismal record through an old friend in Arkansas and school records from her old school district in Arkansas. Third, she spoke with Mr. Rucker, who in turn reached out to her friends and cousin to vouch for her citizenship. Fourth, Ms. French relied on a friend to drive her 40 miles to the hearing; it was difficult for her to drive because she had recently had knee replacement surgery.

Ms. French's hearing before the State Election Board lasted 30 to 35 minutes and was attended by Defendant, the Lieutenant Governor, and a representative from the Kansas Attorney General's office. Also present were members of the media. The entire process from application to the date of her hearing took more than five months. After the hearing, Ms. French was interviewed, and stated: "I just thought it was strange that I had to go through this procedure to be able to vote. And any other state, you go in, throw down your driver's license and that gives you the right to vote. So this was totally off the wall for me. . . . I don't look funny. I don't talk funny, I've been here all my life."

The hearing records contain information on the other four individuals who availed themselves of the hearing process. One established citizenship through a hearing and was represented by retained counsel. Another individual, Mr. Dale Weber, stated that he did not possess DPOC and that procuring such a document would be cost-prohibitive. The State Election Board ultimately accepted an affidavit that Mr. Weber executed on his own behalf as proof of his citizenship, attesting that he had been born on a military base and was a U.S. citizen. The State Election Board apparently found that Mr. Weber's mere attestation was sufficient to establish his citizenship.

---

Note that, after all the unnecessary hurdles imposed by the state, a simple oath turned out to be sufficient after all. These are the kind of people that "election integrity" laws are actually targeting, not mythical alien voters as Republicans would have you believe. The whole purpose is create as many obstacles and disenfranchise as many voters as possible, especially minorities and the poor.

---

This is such bull*****
She couldn't afford to buy a replacement? It literally costs $15 to get a copy from the state of Missouri.
People who don't care enough to get their documents, shouldn't be voting.
It shouldn't be easier to vote than it is to get a pack of cigarettes.

When I was in college I needed to get a passport, but my parents had lost my birth certificate. So I went to the courthouse and paid a few bucks and got a copy. About 8 years ago we moved to a new house. Last year we needed to get a passport for my daughter but we couldn't find her social security card. It was lost during the move. So we spent over 6 months waiting for it to arrive in the mail.
Is it difficult to get replacement documents... not really. Is it an inconvenience... yes.
If someone cannot be bothered to go through a very minor inconvenience, then they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
Everyone should be required to vote in person. It should require SOME level of personal investment.

If youre too lazy to comply.... that's a YOU problem. We don't need to worry about lazy people voting.

---

Don't disagree with you. Just think it is a State issue, not Federal. Even IF Fed can do it, they shouldn't. Leave to States.

---

that's precisely why we are in the situation we are in. Democrat controlled states are cheating.

---

They're not cheating. You just don't like the outcome.

---

Of course they're cheating. by the hundreds of thousands of ballots. documented proof.

You like the cheating because it's justified as a way to beat systemic oppression.

Again: "how can I trust someone who believes in systemic oppression to faithfully administer the parts of the system they control."

---

Can you link the documented proof? So far, not one court case or submitted evidence comes close to those numbers. Thanks.

canoso said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's been applied in court but never directly challenged, mainly because actual voting by noncitizens is so vanishingly rare. To enforce a ban preemptively, as this law does, would cause much more widespread problems. Here are a few examples of what happened with a similar law (later held unconstitutional) in Kansas.

Quote:

---

Plaintiff Donna Bucci is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas and over 18 years old. She was born in Baltimore, Maryland. Ms. Bucci has been employed at the Kansas Department of Corrections for the last six years. She is a cook in the prison kitchen on the 3:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. shift. She is provided with limited time off, and must provide two-weeks' notice to use it. In 2013, Ms. Bucci applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the DOV in Sedgwick County, Kansas. The driver's license examiner did not tell Ms. Bucci that she needed to provide proof of citizenship, and did not indicate that she lacked any necessary documentation. When she left the DOV, she believed she had registered to vote. Later, she received a notice in the mail informing her that she needed to show a birth certificate or a passport to become registered to vote. It did not include information about how to pursue the hearing process in K.S.A. 25-2309(m). Ms. Bucci does not possess a copy of her birth certificate or a passport. She cannot afford the cost of a replacement birth certificate from Maryland and she credibly testified that spending money to obtain one would impact whether she could pay rent. Ms. Bucci's voter registration application was canceled for failure to provide DPOC. She could not vote in the 2014 election, but was able to vote in the 2016 election by operation of the preliminary injunction. Ms. Bucci first learned of the alternative hearing procedure when defense counsel informed her of it during her deposition in this case. She testified that it would be hard for her to even participate in a telephonic hearing because she is not allowed to use her cell phone on a work break.

Plaintiff Charles Stricker is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas, and over 18 years old. He was born in Missouri and has lived in Kansas since late 2013, after a period of living in Chicago. Prior to living in Chicago, Mr. Stricker lived in Kansas and was registered to vote in Kansas during that time. He works as a hotel manager in downtown Wichita. Mr. Stricker applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the Sedgwick County DOV in October 2014. He was told that he had insufficient documentation, and a clerk provided him with a list of documents he needed. Mr. Stricker was attempting to register on the last day of registration before an election, it was so important to him to become registered that he took the day off work to accomplish it. Mr. Stricker rushed home and "grabbed every single document that I could and started shoving them into a file folder to try to get back before the DMV closed," including his birth certificate. He made it back to the DOV in time to complete his application, and recalls telling the clerk that he wanted to register to vote. The DOV clerk did not tell him that he needed any further documentation to register. The clerk printed a small receipt for Mr. Stricker and explained to him that it would be his temporary driver's license until he received his license in the mail. He asked the clerk if there was anything else he needed to do, including whether he needed a voting card. The clerk told him nothing more was necessary. He believed that he was registered to vote.

Mr. Stricker attempted to vote in the 2014 midterm election. He presented his driver's license to the poll worker, but she could not find a record of his registration. He was given a provisional ballot to fill out at an open table with another voter. Mr. Stricker testified that he was confused and embarrassed by the experience. Election day was the first time Mr. Stricker learned that he was not registered to vote. He testified that he learned about the DPOC law sometime later through a press report and wondered if it could explain why he was not allowed to vote. He does not recall receiving any notices from Sedgwick County asking him to provide proof of citizenship.

In 2015, Mr. Stricker's voter registration application was canceled in the ELVIS system. His registration was reinstated by operation of the preliminary injunction on June 22, 2016. At some point in advance of the November 2016 election, Mr. Stricker attempted to check his registration status online and by calling the Sedgwick County election office. The person with whom he spoke told him that it was unclear whether he would be able to vote in the upcoming election because there were legal issues that were still up in the air. When he checked online, there was no record of his registration. On October 26, 2016, the Sedgwick County Election Office sent Mr. Stricker a "Notice of Voter Registration Status." It states:

This notice is to inform you that you have been granted full voter registration status in Kansas and that you are qualified to vote in all official elections in which voters in your precinct are eligible to participate. According to Kansas Statutes Annotated 25, 2309(l), any person registering to vote for the first time in Kansas on or after January 1, 2013, must provide evidence of United States citizenship along with the registration application in order to be granted full registration status. Our records indicate that you submitted a voter registration application during the above-mentioned time period, but you did not provide evidence of your U.S. citizenship. We have since received information from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's Office of Vital Statistics indicating that you have a Kansas birth certificate on file. Based on that determination, your registration status is deemed complete, and we have granted you full voter registration status.

This notice was signed by Tabitha Lehman, the Sedgwick County Election Commissioner. Ms. Lehman testified that, despite Fed. R. Evid. 615 being invoked at the beginning of trial, she read media reports about the trial, including reports of Mr. Stricker's testimony. She testified that ELVIS records indicate Mr. Stricker is active and "fully registered," and that after reviewing his file prior to her testimony, she believes that the notice he received erroneously referenced his Kansas birth certificate, when in fact his citizenship document was in the DOV's database. She testified that in October 2016, just prior to the election, her office had not updated the generic notice sent to applicants whose DPOC was verified by the county to include the DOV database check, a policy that had changed in May 2016. Therefore, between May 2016 when the DOV policy went into effect, and the 2016 election, Sedgwick County--the second largest county in the State--was apparently sending out erroneous and confusing notices to individuals stating that citizenship was confirmed through the department that maintains Kansas birth certificates, when in fact that was not true.

Since the DPOC law was passed, 6 individuals have applied for a hearing under 25-2309(m) with the State Election Board. One of these individuals, Ms. Jo French, lost her birth certificate after moving several times. She testified about the lengthy and burdensome process of registering to vote without a citizenship document. Ms. French's many encounters with the SOS's office led her to characterize her relationship with former-Deputy SOS Eric Rucker as a friendship. She testified that she hoped her testimony would make Defendant "look good." But her testimony contradicted Defendant's position that the DPOC requirement is not burdensome. As she testified, Ms. French's first of many hurdles was to pay $8 for the State of Arkansas to search for her birth certificate to prove that it did not exist, even though she already knew did not exist because she had requested it twice before. Second, she had to collect documents with the help of several other people--her baptismal record through an old friend in Arkansas and school records from her old school district in Arkansas. Third, she spoke with Mr. Rucker, who in turn reached out to her friends and cousin to vouch for her citizenship. Fourth, Ms. French relied on a friend to drive her 40 miles to the hearing; it was difficult for her to drive because she had recently had knee replacement surgery.

Ms. French's hearing before the State Election Board lasted 30 to 35 minutes and was attended by Defendant, the Lieutenant Governor, and a representative from the Kansas Attorney General's office. Also present were members of the media. The entire process from application to the date of her hearing took more than five months. After the hearing, Ms. French was interviewed, and stated: "I just thought it was strange that I had to go through this procedure to be able to vote. And any other state, you go in, throw down your driver's license and that gives you the right to vote. So this was totally off the wall for me. . . . I don't look funny. I don't talk funny, I've been here all my life."

The hearing records contain information on the other four individuals who availed themselves of the hearing process. One established citizenship through a hearing and was represented by retained counsel. Another individual, Mr. Dale Weber, stated that he did not possess DPOC and that procuring such a document would be cost-prohibitive. The State Election Board ultimately accepted an affidavit that Mr. Weber executed on his own behalf as proof of his citizenship, attesting that he had been born on a military base and was a U.S. citizen. The State Election Board apparently found that Mr. Weber's mere attestation was sufficient to establish his citizenship.

---

Note that, after all the unnecessary hurdles imposed by the state, a simple oath turned out to be sufficient after all. These are the kind of people that "election integrity" laws are actually targeting, not mythical alien voters as Republicans would have you believe. The whole purpose is create as many obstacles and disenfranchise as many voters as possible, especially minorities and the poor.

---

This is such bull*****
She couldn't afford to buy a replacement? It literally costs $15 to get a copy from the state of Missouri.
People who don't care enough to get their documents, shouldn't be voting.
It shouldn't be easier to vote than it is to get a pack of cigarettes.

When I was in college I needed to get a passport, but my parents had lost my birth certificate. So I went to the courthouse and paid a few bucks and got a copy. About 8 years ago we moved to a new house. Last year we needed to get a passport for my daughter but we couldn't find her social security card. It was lost during the move. So we spent over 6 months waiting for it to arrive in the mail.
Is it difficult to get replacement documents... not really. Is it an inconvenience... yes.
If someone cannot be bothered to go through a very minor inconvenience, then they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
Everyone should be required to vote in person. It should require SOME level of personal investment.

If youre too lazy to comply.... that's a YOU problem. We don't need to worry about lazy people voting.

---

Don't disagree with you. Just think it is a State issue, not Federal. Even IF Fed can do it, they shouldn't. Leave to States.

---

that's precisely why we are in the situation we are in. Democrat controlled states are cheating.

---

They're not cheating. You just don't like the outcome.

---

Of course they're cheating. by the hundreds of thousands of ballots. documented proof.

You like the cheating because it's justified as a way to beat systemic oppression.

Again: "how can I trust someone who believes in systemic oppression to faithfully administer the parts of the system they control."

---

Can you link the documented proof? So far, not one court case or submitted evidence comes close to those numbers. Thanks.

---

The best way to ensure there's no documented proof is just to throw out the court cases, thus avoiding that pesky submitted evidence. What a concept!

---

Sorry that about asking for some standard data point to discuss. How do you come to any conclusion if there is no common data to work off? Right now, it is hear-say, supposition and conspiracy theory. Barr, Courts, CATO, Brookings, Heritage, etc... No one has turned up any evidence.

If it happened, I would like to know where and who.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There has never really been a forensic examination of ballots that could verify that all votes came from people who actually intended to vote, or that the ballot reflected who they actually wanted to vote for. It's way too easy to take advantage of the elderly, the infirm, the homeless, etc in this way. You'd be a fool if you didn't believe this happened in an election year where you could just mail in your votes or drop it off at 2 AM in an unsecured public box.

---

At the risk of the typical meltdown. What you are describing is not fraud, those States changed their rules. Barr was yelling about this after the 2020 election, but people are caught up on the term - "fraud".

The States allowed more people to vote, but they were individual people. Vote Harvesting and drop off boxes allowed more people to vote than ever before. The GOP was asleep behind the wheel. That is why the fraught cannot be proven, it didn't happen. The States amended the rules allowing more people to vote. It was corrected in 2024. They will not be able to do that again. It was a perfect storm of COVID and clever politics. Voter ID would not have solved that, as each vote was a real person.

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There has never really been a forensic examination of ballots that could verify that all votes came from people who actually intended to vote, or that the ballot reflected who they actually wanted to vote for. It's way too easy to take advantage of the elderly, the infirm, the homeless, etc in this way. You'd be a fool if you didn't believe this happened in an election year where you could just mail in your votes or drop it off at 2 AM in an unsecured public box.

---

At the risk of the typical meltdown. What you are describing is not fraud, those States changed their rules. Barr was yelling about this after the 2020 election, but people are caught up on the term - "fraud".

The States allowed more people to vote, but they were individual people. Vote Harvesting and drop off boxes allowed more people to vote than ever before. The GOP was asleep behind the wheel. That is why the fraught cannot be proven, it didn't happen. The States amended the rules allowing more people to vote. It was corrected in 2024. They will not be able to do that again. It was a perfect storm of COVID and clever politics. Voter ID would not have solved that, as each vote was a real person.

---

"Meltdown"? You are the Chernobyl disaster of meltdowns. You can't separate out fact, logic, and reason from your emotions. Votes coming from those who had no idea they voted is, in fact, fraud defined. Just because the "fraught" wasn't be proven doesn't mean it didn't happen. Your atrocious logic at display yet again.

Voter ID is great and would help clean some things up. The biggest issues are ballot harvesting and mass mail in ballots.

Limiting mail in ballots to those who actually need it - overseas citizens, disabled citizens unable to travel - would go a long way to ensure ballots are filled out by the actual voter. Signature verification on mail in ballots should be mandatory and never optional. Mail in ballots that are not signed are not valid. Period. That would be like leaving a voting location without scanning or finalizing your vote. Where to sign the ballot should be very clear and clearly marked as absolutely necessary.

All locations where ballots are counted should be required to have observers present that are approved by each party with candidates - not just the two big parties.No observers, no counting.
If a party declines to provide observers, there needs to be a signed document to that effect. Observers must be named well before counting begins. If a party fails to provide the names of approved observers in the time frame required, then they must sign that they will not have. any for that locale.

Ballot boxes need to be banned as it seems it is not possible for those ballots to have a real chain of custody. Absentee ballots should have a scannable envelope with tracking through delivery systems. I wouldn't mind absentee voters having a carbon copy of their ballot, just in case their vote is miscast.

I'd like to see voters have the option of taking with them a document showing how their vote was officially cast.

FLBear5630 said:

---

canoso said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's been applied in court but never directly challenged, mainly because actual voting by noncitizens is so vanishingly rare. To enforce a ban preemptively, as this law does, would cause much more widespread problems. Here are a few examples of what happened with a similar law (later held unconstitutional) in Kansas.

Quote:

---

Plaintiff Donna Bucci is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas and over 18 years old. She was born in Baltimore, Maryland. Ms. Bucci has been employed at the Kansas Department of Corrections for the last six years. She is a cook in the prison kitchen on the 3:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. shift. She is provided with limited time off, and must provide two-weeks' notice to use it. In 2013, Ms. Bucci applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the DOV in Sedgwick County, Kansas. The driver's license examiner did not tell Ms. Bucci that she needed to provide proof of citizenship, and did not indicate that she lacked any necessary documentation. When she left the DOV, she believed she had registered to vote. Later, she received a notice in the mail informing her that she needed to show a birth certificate or a passport to become registered to vote. It did not include information about how to pursue the hearing process in K.S.A. 25-2309(m). Ms. Bucci does not possess a copy of her birth certificate or a passport. She cannot afford the cost of a replacement birth certificate from Maryland and she credibly testified that spending money to obtain one would impact whether she could pay rent. Ms. Bucci's voter registration application was canceled for failure to provide DPOC. She could not vote in the 2014 election, but was able to vote in the 2016 election by operation of the preliminary injunction. Ms. Bucci first learned of the alternative hearing procedure when defense counsel informed her of it during her deposition in this case. She testified that it would be hard for her to even participate in a telephonic hearing because she is not allowed to use her cell phone on a work break.

Plaintiff Charles Stricker is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas, and over 18 years old. He was born in Missouri and has lived in Kansas since late 2013, after a period of living in Chicago. Prior to living in Chicago, Mr. Stricker lived in Kansas and was registered to vote in Kansas during that time. He works as a hotel manager in downtown Wichita. Mr. Stricker applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the Sedgwick County DOV in October 2014. He was told that he had insufficient documentation, and a clerk provided him with a list of documents he needed. Mr. Stricker was attempting to register on the last day of registration before an election, it was so important to him to become registered that he took the day off work to accomplish it. Mr. Stricker rushed home and "grabbed every single document that I could and started shoving them into a file folder to try to get back before the DMV closed," including his birth certificate. He made it back to the DOV in time to complete his application, and recalls telling the clerk that he wanted to register to vote. The DOV clerk did not tell him that he needed any further documentation to register. The clerk printed a small receipt for Mr. Stricker and explained to him that it would be his temporary driver's license until he received his license in the mail. He asked the clerk if there was anything else he needed to do, including whether he needed a voting card. The clerk told him nothing more was necessary. He believed that he was registered to vote.

Mr. Stricker attempted to vote in the 2014 midterm election. He presented his driver's license to the poll worker, but she could not find a record of his registration. He was given a provisional ballot to fill out at an open table with another voter. Mr. Stricker testified that he was confused and embarrassed by the experience. Election day was the first time Mr. Stricker learned that he was not registered to vote. He testified that he learned about the DPOC law sometime later through a press report and wondered if it could explain why he was not allowed to vote. He does not recall receiving any notices from Sedgwick County asking him to provide proof of citizenship.

In 2015, Mr. Stricker's voter registration application was canceled in the ELVIS system. His registration was reinstated by operation of the preliminary injunction on June 22, 2016. At some point in advance of the November 2016 election, Mr. Stricker attempted to check his registration status online and by calling the Sedgwick County election office. The person with whom he spoke told him that it was unclear whether he would be able to vote in the upcoming election because there were legal issues that were still up in the air. When he checked online, there was no record of his registration. On October 26, 2016, the Sedgwick County Election Office sent Mr. Stricker a "Notice of Voter Registration Status." It states:

This notice is to inform you that you have been granted full voter registration status in Kansas and that you are qualified to vote in all official elections in which voters in your precinct are eligible to participate. According to Kansas Statutes Annotated 25, 2309(l), any person registering to vote for the first time in Kansas on or after January 1, 2013, must provide evidence of United States citizenship along with the registration application in order to be granted full registration status. Our records indicate that you submitted a voter registration application during the above-mentioned time period, but you did not provide evidence of your U.S. citizenship. We have since received information from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's Office of Vital Statistics indicating that you have a Kansas birth certificate on file. Based on that determination, your registration status is deemed complete, and we have granted you full voter registration status.

This notice was signed by Tabitha Lehman, the Sedgwick County Election Commissioner. Ms. Lehman testified that, despite Fed. R. Evid. 615 being invoked at the beginning of trial, she read media reports about the trial, including reports of Mr. Stricker's testimony. She testified that ELVIS records indicate Mr. Stricker is active and "fully registered," and that after reviewing his file prior to her testimony, she believes that the notice he received erroneously referenced his Kansas birth certificate, when in fact his citizenship document was in the DOV's database. She testified that in October 2016, just prior to the election, her office had not updated the generic notice sent to applicants whose DPOC was verified by the county to include the DOV database check, a policy that had changed in May 2016. Therefore, between May 2016 when the DOV policy went into effect, and the 2016 election, Sedgwick County--the second largest county in the State--was apparently sending out erroneous and confusing notices to individuals stating that citizenship was confirmed through the department that maintains Kansas birth certificates, when in fact that was not true.

Since the DPOC law was passed, 6 individuals have applied for a hearing under 25-2309(m) with the State Election Board. One of these individuals, Ms. Jo French, lost her birth certificate after moving several times. She testified about the lengthy and burdensome process of registering to vote without a citizenship document. Ms. French's many encounters with the SOS's office led her to characterize her relationship with former-Deputy SOS Eric Rucker as a friendship. She testified that she hoped her testimony would make Defendant "look good." But her testimony contradicted Defendant's position that the DPOC requirement is not burdensome. As she testified, Ms. French's first of many hurdles was to pay $8 for the State of Arkansas to search for her birth certificate to prove that it did not exist, even though she already knew did not exist because she had requested it twice before. Second, she had to collect documents with the help of several other people--her baptismal record through an old friend in Arkansas and school records from her old school district in Arkansas. Third, she spoke with Mr. Rucker, who in turn reached out to her friends and cousin to vouch for her citizenship. Fourth, Ms. French relied on a friend to drive her 40 miles to the hearing; it was difficult for her to drive because she had recently had knee replacement surgery.

Ms. French's hearing before the State Election Board lasted 30 to 35 minutes and was attended by Defendant, the Lieutenant Governor, and a representative from the Kansas Attorney General's office. Also present were members of the media. The entire process from application to the date of her hearing took more than five months. After the hearing, Ms. French was interviewed, and stated: "I just thought it was strange that I had to go through this procedure to be able to vote. And any other state, you go in, throw down your driver's license and that gives you the right to vote. So this was totally off the wall for me. . . . I don't look funny. I don't talk funny, I've been here all my life."

The hearing records contain information on the other four individuals who availed themselves of the hearing process. One established citizenship through a hearing and was represented by retained counsel. Another individual, Mr. Dale Weber, stated that he did not possess DPOC and that procuring such a document would be cost-prohibitive. The State Election Board ultimately accepted an affidavit that Mr. Weber executed on his own behalf as proof of his citizenship, attesting that he had been born on a military base and was a U.S. citizen. The State Election Board apparently found that Mr. Weber's mere attestation was sufficient to establish his citizenship.

---

Note that, after all the unnecessary hurdles imposed by the state, a simple oath turned out to be sufficient after all. These are the kind of people that "election integrity" laws are actually targeting, not mythical alien voters as Republicans would have you believe. The whole purpose is create as many obstacles and disenfranchise as many voters as possible, especially minorities and the poor.

---

This is such bull*****
She couldn't afford to buy a replacement? It literally costs $15 to get a copy from the state of Missouri.
People who don't care enough to get their documents, shouldn't be voting.
It shouldn't be easier to vote than it is to get a pack of cigarettes.

When I was in college I needed to get a passport, but my parents had lost my birth certificate. So I went to the courthouse and paid a few bucks and got a copy. About 8 years ago we moved to a new house. Last year we needed to get a passport for my daughter but we couldn't find her social security card. It was lost during the move. So we spent over 6 months waiting for it to arrive in the mail.
Is it difficult to get replacement documents... not really. Is it an inconvenience... yes.
If someone cannot be bothered to go through a very minor inconvenience, then they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
Everyone should be required to vote in person. It should require SOME level of personal investment.

If youre too lazy to comply.... that's a YOU problem. We don't need to worry about lazy people voting.

---

Don't disagree with you. Just think it is a State issue, not Federal. Even IF Fed can do it, they shouldn't. Leave to States.

---

that's precisely why we are in the situation we are in. Democrat controlled states are cheating.

---

They're not cheating. You just don't like the outcome.

---

Of course they're cheating. by the hundreds of thousands of ballots. documented proof.

You like the cheating because it's justified as a way to beat systemic oppression.

Again: "how can I trust someone who believes in systemic oppression to faithfully administer the parts of the system they control."

---

Can you link the documented proof? So far, not one court case or submitted evidence comes close to those numbers. Thanks.

---

The best way to ensure there's no documented proof is just to throw out the court cases, thus avoiding that pesky submitted evidence. What a concept!

---

Sorry that about asking for some standard data point to discuss. How do you come to any conclusion if there is no common data to work off? Right now, it is hear-say, supposition and conspiracy theory. Barr, Courts, CATO, Brookings, Heritage, etc... No one has turned up any evidence.

If it happened, I would like to know where and who.

---

And the opposite is also true. How can someone claim disenfranchisement when there is no record of disenfranchisement?

How do you amass evidence of voter fraud when the states at issue will not release their voter data?
How do you prove an illegal vote when no identification is required to begin with?
How is it that there are more registered voters in democrat cities than there are eligible voters?
Where did those 10 million people that voted for Biden in 2020 magically amass from and then suddenly disappear?

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

Voter ID is great and would help clean some things up. The biggest issues are ballot harvesting and mass mail in ballots.

Limiting mail in ballots to those who actually need it - overseas citizens, disabled citizens unable to travel - would go a long way to ensure ballots are filled out by the actual voter. Signature verification on mail in ballots should be mandatory and never optional. Mail in ballots that are not signed are not valid. Period. That would be like leaving a voting location without scanning or finalizing your vote. Where to sign the ballot should be very clear and clearly marked as absolutely necessary.

All locations where ballots are counted should be required to have observers present that are approved by each party with candidates - not just the two big parties.No observers, no counting.
If a party declines to provide observers, there needs to be a signed document to that effect. Observers must be named well before counting begins. If a party fails to provide the names of approved observers in the time frame required, then they must sign that they will not have. any for that locale.

Ballot boxes need to be banned as it seems it is not possible for those ballots to have a real chain of custody. Absentee ballots should have a scannable envelope with tracking through delivery systems. I wouldn't mind absentee voters having a carbon copy of their ballot, just in case their vote is miscast.

I'd like to see voters have the option of taking with them a document showing how their vote was officially cast.

---

Need to make sure State laws do not allow it. If it is legal, it will happen.

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There has never really been a forensic examination of ballots that could verify that all votes came from people who actually intended to vote, or that the ballot reflected who they actually wanted to vote for. It's way too easy to take advantage of the elderly, the infirm, the homeless, etc in this way. You'd be a fool if you didn't believe this happened in an election year where you could just mail in your votes or drop it off at 2 AM in an unsecured public box.

---

It was a perfect storm of COVID and clever politics. Voter ID would not have solved that, as each vote was a real person.

---

Where is that evidence?

---

So now the burden is proving they are legal?

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

canoso said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's been applied in court but never directly challenged, mainly because actual voting by noncitizens is so vanishingly rare. To enforce a ban preemptively, as this law does, would cause much more widespread problems. Here are a few examples of what happened with a similar law (later held unconstitutional) in Kansas.

Quote:

---

Plaintiff Donna Bucci is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas and over 18 years old. She was born in Baltimore, Maryland. Ms. Bucci has been employed at the Kansas Department of Corrections for the last six years. She is a cook in the prison kitchen on the 3:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. shift. She is provided with limited time off, and must provide two-weeks' notice to use it. In 2013, Ms. Bucci applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the DOV in Sedgwick County, Kansas. The driver's license examiner did not tell Ms. Bucci that she needed to provide proof of citizenship, and did not indicate that she lacked any necessary documentation. When she left the DOV, she believed she had registered to vote. Later, she received a notice in the mail informing her that she needed to show a birth certificate or a passport to become registered to vote. It did not include information about how to pursue the hearing process in K.S.A. 25-2309(m). Ms. Bucci does not possess a copy of her birth certificate or a passport. She cannot afford the cost of a replacement birth certificate from Maryland and she credibly testified that spending money to obtain one would impact whether she could pay rent. Ms. Bucci's voter registration application was canceled for failure to provide DPOC. She could not vote in the 2014 election, but was able to vote in the 2016 election by operation of the preliminary injunction. Ms. Bucci first learned of the alternative hearing procedure when defense counsel informed her of it during her deposition in this case. She testified that it would be hard for her to even participate in a telephonic hearing because she is not allowed to use her cell phone on a work break.

Plaintiff Charles Stricker is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas, and over 18 years old. He was born in Missouri and has lived in Kansas since late 2013, after a period of living in Chicago. Prior to living in Chicago, Mr. Stricker lived in Kansas and was registered to vote in Kansas during that time. He works as a hotel manager in downtown Wichita. Mr. Stricker applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the Sedgwick County DOV in October 2014. He was told that he had insufficient documentation, and a clerk provided him with a list of documents he needed. Mr. Stricker was attempting to register on the last day of registration before an election, it was so important to him to become registered that he took the day off work to accomplish it. Mr. Stricker rushed home and "grabbed every single document that I could and started shoving them into a file folder to try to get back before the DMV closed," including his birth certificate. He made it back to the DOV in time to complete his application, and recalls telling the clerk that he wanted to register to vote. The DOV clerk did not tell him that he needed any further documentation to register. The clerk printed a small receipt for Mr. Stricker and explained to him that it would be his temporary driver's license until he received his license in the mail. He asked the clerk if there was anything else he needed to do, including whether he needed a voting card. The clerk told him nothing more was necessary. He believed that he was registered to vote.

Mr. Stricker attempted to vote in the 2014 midterm election. He presented his driver's license to the poll worker, but she could not find a record of his registration. He was given a provisional ballot to fill out at an open table with another voter. Mr. Stricker testified that he was confused and embarrassed by the experience. Election day was the first time Mr. Stricker learned that he was not registered to vote. He testified that he learned about the DPOC law sometime later through a press report and wondered if it could explain why he was not allowed to vote. He does not recall receiving any notices from Sedgwick County asking him to provide proof of citizenship.

In 2015, Mr. Stricker's voter registration application was canceled in the ELVIS system. His registration was reinstated by operation of the preliminary injunction on June 22, 2016. At some point in advance of the November 2016 election, Mr. Stricker attempted to check his registration status online and by calling the Sedgwick County election office. The person with whom he spoke told him that it was unclear whether he would be able to vote in the upcoming election because there were legal issues that were still up in the air. When he checked online, there was no record of his registration. On October 26, 2016, the Sedgwick County Election Office sent Mr. Stricker a "Notice of Voter Registration Status." It states:

This notice is to inform you that you have been granted full voter registration status in Kansas and that you are qualified to vote in all official elections in which voters in your precinct are eligible to participate. According to Kansas Statutes Annotated 25, 2309(l), any person registering to vote for the first time in Kansas on or after January 1, 2013, must provide evidence of United States citizenship along with the registration application in order to be granted full registration status. Our records indicate that you submitted a voter registration application during the above-mentioned time period, but you did not provide evidence of your U.S. citizenship. We have since received information from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's Office of Vital Statistics indicating that you have a Kansas birth certificate on file. Based on that determination, your registration status is deemed complete, and we have granted you full voter registration status.

This notice was signed by Tabitha Lehman, the Sedgwick County Election Commissioner. Ms. Lehman testified that, despite Fed. R. Evid. 615 being invoked at the beginning of trial, she read media reports about the trial, including reports of Mr. Stricker's testimony. She testified that ELVIS records indicate Mr. Stricker is active and "fully registered," and that after reviewing his file prior to her testimony, she believes that the notice he received erroneously referenced his Kansas birth certificate, when in fact his citizenship document was in the DOV's database. She testified that in October 2016, just prior to the election, her office had not updated the generic notice sent to applicants whose DPOC was verified by the county to include the DOV database check, a policy that had changed in May 2016. Therefore, between May 2016 when the DOV policy went into effect, and the 2016 election, Sedgwick County--the second largest county in the State--was apparently sending out erroneous and confusing notices to individuals stating that citizenship was confirmed through the department that maintains Kansas birth certificates, when in fact that was not true.

Since the DPOC law was passed, 6 individuals have applied for a hearing under 25-2309(m) with the State Election Board. One of these individuals, Ms. Jo French, lost her birth certificate after moving several times. She testified about the lengthy and burdensome process of registering to vote without a citizenship document. Ms. French's many encounters with the SOS's office led her to characterize her relationship with former-Deputy SOS Eric Rucker as a friendship. She testified that she hoped her testimony would make Defendant "look good." But her testimony contradicted Defendant's position that the DPOC requirement is not burdensome. As she testified, Ms. French's first of many hurdles was to pay $8 for the State of Arkansas to search for her birth certificate to prove that it did not exist, even though she already knew did not exist because she had requested it twice before. Second, she had to collect documents with the help of several other people--her baptismal record through an old friend in Arkansas and school records from her old school district in Arkansas. Third, she spoke with Mr. Rucker, who in turn reached out to her friends and cousin to vouch for her citizenship. Fourth, Ms. French relied on a friend to drive her 40 miles to the hearing; it was difficult for her to drive because she had recently had knee replacement surgery.

Ms. French's hearing before the State Election Board lasted 30 to 35 minutes and was attended by Defendant, the Lieutenant Governor, and a representative from the Kansas Attorney General's office. Also present were members of the media. The entire process from application to the date of her hearing took more than five months. After the hearing, Ms. French was interviewed, and stated: "I just thought it was strange that I had to go through this procedure to be able to vote. And any other state, you go in, throw down your driver's license and that gives you the right to vote. So this was totally off the wall for me. . . . I don't look funny. I don't talk funny, I've been here all my life."

The hearing records contain information on the other four individuals who availed themselves of the hearing process. One established citizenship through a hearing and was represented by retained counsel. Another individual, Mr. Dale Weber, stated that he did not possess DPOC and that procuring such a document would be cost-prohibitive. The State Election Board ultimately accepted an affidavit that Mr. Weber executed on his own behalf as proof of his citizenship, attesting that he had been born on a military base and was a U.S. citizen. The State Election Board apparently found that Mr. Weber's mere attestation was sufficient to establish his citizenship.

---

Note that, after all the unnecessary hurdles imposed by the state, a simple oath turned out to be sufficient after all. These are the kind of people that "election integrity" laws are actually targeting, not mythical alien voters as Republicans would have you believe. The whole purpose is create as many obstacles and disenfranchise as many voters as possible, especially minorities and the poor.

---

This is such bull*****
She couldn't afford to buy a replacement? It literally costs $15 to get a copy from the state of Missouri.
People who don't care enough to get their documents, shouldn't be voting.
It shouldn't be easier to vote than it is to get a pack of cigarettes.

When I was in college I needed to get a passport, but my parents had lost my birth certificate. So I went to the courthouse and paid a few bucks and got a copy. About 8 years ago we moved to a new house. Last year we needed to get a passport for my daughter but we couldn't find her social security card. It was lost during the move. So we spent over 6 months waiting for it to arrive in the mail.
Is it difficult to get replacement documents... not really. Is it an inconvenience... yes.
If someone cannot be bothered to go through a very minor inconvenience, then they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
Everyone should be required to vote in person. It should require SOME level of personal investment.

If youre too lazy to comply.... that's a YOU problem. We don't need to worry about lazy people voting.

---

Don't disagree with you. Just think it is a State issue, not Federal. Even IF Fed can do it, they shouldn't. Leave to States.

---

that's precisely why we are in the situation we are in. Democrat controlled states are cheating.

---

They're not cheating. You just don't like the outcome.

---

Of course they're cheating. by the hundreds of thousands of ballots. documented proof.

You like the cheating because it's justified as a way to beat systemic oppression.

Again: "how can I trust someone who believes in systemic oppression to faithfully administer the parts of the system they control."

---

Can you link the documented proof? So far, not one court case or submitted evidence comes close to those numbers. Thanks.

---

The best way to ensure there's no documented proof is just to throw out the court cases, thus avoiding that pesky submitted evidence. What a concept!

---

Sorry that about asking for some standard data point to discuss. How do you come to any conclusion if there is no common data to work off? Right now, it is hear-say, supposition and conspiracy theory. Barr, Courts, CATO, Brookings, Heritage, etc... No one has turned up any evidence.

If it happened, I would like to know where and who.

---

And the opposite is also true. How can someone claim disenfranchisement when there is no record of disenfranchisement?

How do you amass evidence of voter fraud when the states at issue will not release their voter data?
How do you prove an illegal vote when no identification is required to begin with?
How is it that there are more registered voters in democrat cities than there are eligible voters?
Where did those 10 million people that voted for Biden in 2020 magically amass from and then suddenly disappear?

---

There is not one State that the election fraud theory was proven. Trump has been in office for a year, still nothing. It has to hold up in court that the votes are illegal that is our system

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

canoso said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's been applied in court but never directly challenged, mainly because actual voting by noncitizens is so vanishingly rare. To enforce a ban preemptively, as this law does, would cause much more widespread problems. Here are a few examples of what happened with a similar law (later held unconstitutional) in Kansas.

Quote:

---

Plaintiff Donna Bucci is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas and over 18 years old. She was born in Baltimore, Maryland. Ms. Bucci has been employed at the Kansas Department of Corrections for the last six years. She is a cook in the prison kitchen on the 3:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. shift. She is provided with limited time off, and must provide two-weeks' notice to use it. In 2013, Ms. Bucci applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the DOV in Sedgwick County, Kansas. The driver's license examiner did not tell Ms. Bucci that she needed to provide proof of citizenship, and did not indicate that she lacked any necessary documentation. When she left the DOV, she believed she had registered to vote. Later, she received a notice in the mail informing her that she needed to show a birth certificate or a passport to become registered to vote. It did not include information about how to pursue the hearing process in K.S.A. 25-2309(m). Ms. Bucci does not possess a copy of her birth certificate or a passport. She cannot afford the cost of a replacement birth certificate from Maryland and she credibly testified that spending money to obtain one would impact whether she could pay rent. Ms. Bucci's voter registration application was canceled for failure to provide DPOC. She could not vote in the 2014 election, but was able to vote in the 2016 election by operation of the preliminary injunction. Ms. Bucci first learned of the alternative hearing procedure when defense counsel informed her of it during her deposition in this case. She testified that it would be hard for her to even participate in a telephonic hearing because she is not allowed to use her cell phone on a work break.

Plaintiff Charles Stricker is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas, and over 18 years old. He was born in Missouri and has lived in Kansas since late 2013, after a period of living in Chicago. Prior to living in Chicago, Mr. Stricker lived in Kansas and was registered to vote in Kansas during that time. He works as a hotel manager in downtown Wichita. Mr. Stricker applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the Sedgwick County DOV in October 2014. He was told that he had insufficient documentation, and a clerk provided him with a list of documents he needed. Mr. Stricker was attempting to register on the last day of registration before an election, it was so important to him to become registered that he took the day off work to accomplish it. Mr. Stricker rushed home and "grabbed every single document that I could and started shoving them into a file folder to try to get back before the DMV closed," including his birth certificate. He made it back to the DOV in time to complete his application, and recalls telling the clerk that he wanted to register to vote. The DOV clerk did not tell him that he needed any further documentation to register. The clerk printed a small receipt for Mr. Stricker and explained to him that it would be his temporary driver's license until he received his license in the mail. He asked the clerk if there was anything else he needed to do, including whether he needed a voting card. The clerk told him nothing more was necessary. He believed that he was registered to vote.

Mr. Stricker attempted to vote in the 2014 midterm election. He presented his driver's license to the poll worker, but she could not find a record of his registration. He was given a provisional ballot to fill out at an open table with another voter. Mr. Stricker testified that he was confused and embarrassed by the experience. Election day was the first time Mr. Stricker learned that he was not registered to vote. He testified that he learned about the DPOC law sometime later through a press report and wondered if it could explain why he was not allowed to vote. He does not recall receiving any notices from Sedgwick County asking him to provide proof of citizenship.

In 2015, Mr. Stricker's voter registration application was canceled in the ELVIS system. His registration was reinstated by operation of the preliminary injunction on June 22, 2016. At some point in advance of the November 2016 election, Mr. Stricker attempted to check his registration status online and by calling the Sedgwick County election office. The person with whom he spoke told him that it was unclear whether he would be able to vote in the upcoming election because there were legal issues that were still up in the air. When he checked online, there was no record of his registration. On October 26, 2016, the Sedgwick County Election Office sent Mr. Stricker a "Notice of Voter Registration Status." It states:

This notice is to inform you that you have been granted full voter registration status in Kansas and that you are qualified to vote in all official elections in which voters in your precinct are eligible to participate. According to Kansas Statutes Annotated 25, 2309(l), any person registering to vote for the first time in Kansas on or after January 1, 2013, must provide evidence of United States citizenship along with the registration application in order to be granted full registration status. Our records indicate that you submitted a voter registration application during the above-mentioned time period, but you did not provide evidence of your U.S. citizenship. We have since received information from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's Office of Vital Statistics indicating that you have a Kansas birth certificate on file. Based on that determination, your registration status is deemed complete, and we have granted you full voter registration status.

This notice was signed by Tabitha Lehman, the Sedgwick County Election Commissioner. Ms. Lehman testified that, despite Fed. R. Evid. 615 being invoked at the beginning of trial, she read media reports about the trial, including reports of Mr. Stricker's testimony. She testified that ELVIS records indicate Mr. Stricker is active and "fully registered," and that after reviewing his file prior to her testimony, she believes that the notice he received erroneously referenced his Kansas birth certificate, when in fact his citizenship document was in the DOV's database. She testified that in October 2016, just prior to the election, her office had not updated the generic notice sent to applicants whose DPOC was verified by the county to include the DOV database check, a policy that had changed in May 2016. Therefore, between May 2016 when the DOV policy went into effect, and the 2016 election, Sedgwick County--the second largest county in the State--was apparently sending out erroneous and confusing notices to individuals stating that citizenship was confirmed through the department that maintains Kansas birth certificates, when in fact that was not true.

Since the DPOC law was passed, 6 individuals have applied for a hearing under 25-2309(m) with the State Election Board. One of these individuals, Ms. Jo French, lost her birth certificate after moving several times. She testified about the lengthy and burdensome process of registering to vote without a citizenship document. Ms. French's many encounters with the SOS's office led her to characterize her relationship with former-Deputy SOS Eric Rucker as a friendship. She testified that she hoped her testimony would make Defendant "look good." But her testimony contradicted Defendant's position that the DPOC requirement is not burdensome. As she testified, Ms. French's first of many hurdles was to pay $8 for the State of Arkansas to search for her birth certificate to prove that it did not exist, even though she already knew did not exist because she had requested it twice before. Second, she had to collect documents with the help of several other people--her baptismal record through an old friend in Arkansas and school records from her old school district in Arkansas. Third, she spoke with Mr. Rucker, who in turn reached out to her friends and cousin to vouch for her citizenship. Fourth, Ms. French relied on a friend to drive her 40 miles to the hearing; it was difficult for her to drive because she had recently had knee replacement surgery.

Ms. French's hearing before the State Election Board lasted 30 to 35 minutes and was attended by Defendant, the Lieutenant Governor, and a representative from the Kansas Attorney General's office. Also present were members of the media. The entire process from application to the date of her hearing took more than five months. After the hearing, Ms. French was interviewed, and stated: "I just thought it was strange that I had to go through this procedure to be able to vote. And any other state, you go in, throw down your driver's license and that gives you the right to vote. So this was totally off the wall for me. . . . I don't look funny. I don't talk funny, I've been here all my life."

The hearing records contain information on the other four individuals who availed themselves of the hearing process. One established citizenship through a hearing and was represented by retained counsel. Another individual, Mr. Dale Weber, stated that he did not possess DPOC and that procuring such a document would be cost-prohibitive. The State Election Board ultimately accepted an affidavit that Mr. Weber executed on his own behalf as proof of his citizenship, attesting that he had been born on a military base and was a U.S. citizen. The State Election Board apparently found that Mr. Weber's mere attestation was sufficient to establish his citizenship.

---

Note that, after all the unnecessary hurdles imposed by the state, a simple oath turned out to be sufficient after all. These are the kind of people that "election integrity" laws are actually targeting, not mythical alien voters as Republicans would have you believe. The whole purpose is create as many obstacles and disenfranchise as many voters as possible, especially minorities and the poor.

---

This is such bull*****
She couldn't afford to buy a replacement? It literally costs $15 to get a copy from the state of Missouri.
People who don't care enough to get their documents, shouldn't be voting.
It shouldn't be easier to vote than it is to get a pack of cigarettes.

When I was in college I needed to get a passport, but my parents had lost my birth certificate. So I went to the courthouse and paid a few bucks and got a copy. About 8 years ago we moved to a new house. Last year we needed to get a passport for my daughter but we couldn't find her social security card. It was lost during the move. So we spent over 6 months waiting for it to arrive in the mail.
Is it difficult to get replacement documents... not really. Is it an inconvenience... yes.
If someone cannot be bothered to go through a very minor inconvenience, then they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
Everyone should be required to vote in person. It should require SOME level of personal investment.

If youre too lazy to comply.... that's a YOU problem. We don't need to worry about lazy people voting.

---

Don't disagree with you. Just think it is a State issue, not Federal. Even IF Fed can do it, they shouldn't. Leave to States.

---

that's precisely why we are in the situation we are in. Democrat controlled states are cheating.

---

They're not cheating. You just don't like the outcome.

---

Of course they're cheating. by the hundreds of thousands of ballots. documented proof.

You like the cheating because it's justified as a way to beat systemic oppression.

Again: "how can I trust someone who believes in systemic oppression to faithfully administer the parts of the system they control."

---

Can you link the documented proof? So far, not one court case or submitted evidence comes close to those numbers. Thanks.

---

The best way to ensure there's no documented proof is just to throw out the court cases, thus avoiding that pesky submitted evidence. What a concept!

---

Sorry that about asking for some standard data point to discuss. How do you come to any conclusion if there is no common data to work off? Right now, it is hear-say, supposition and conspiracy theory. Barr, Courts, CATO, Brookings, Heritage, etc... No one has turned up any evidence.

If it happened, I would like to know where and who.

---

And the opposite is also true. How can someone claim disenfranchisement when there is no record of disenfranchisement?

How do you amass evidence of voter fraud when the states at issue will not release their voter data?
How do you prove an illegal vote when no identification is required to begin with?
How is it that there are more registered voters in democrat cities than there are eligible voters?
Where did those 10 million people that voted for Biden in 2020 magically amass from and then suddenly disappear?

---

There is not one State that the election fraud theory was proven. Trump has been in office for a year, still nothing. It has to hold up in court that the votes are illegal that is our system

---

I can't help but notice you don't get anywhere here, my friend. Motor is redlined but transmission is in park.

canoso said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

canoso said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's been applied in court but never directly challenged, mainly because actual voting by noncitizens is so vanishingly rare. To enforce a ban preemptively, as this law does, would cause much more widespread problems. Here are a few examples of what happened with a similar law (later held unconstitutional) in Kansas.

Quote:

---

Plaintiff Donna Bucci is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas and over 18 years old. She was born in Baltimore, Maryland. Ms. Bucci has been employed at the Kansas Department of Corrections for the last six years. She is a cook in the prison kitchen on the 3:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. shift. She is provided with limited time off, and must provide two-weeks' notice to use it. In 2013, Ms. Bucci applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the DOV in Sedgwick County, Kansas. The driver's license examiner did not tell Ms. Bucci that she needed to provide proof of citizenship, and did not indicate that she lacked any necessary documentation. When she left the DOV, she believed she had registered to vote. Later, she received a notice in the mail informing her that she needed to show a birth certificate or a passport to become registered to vote. It did not include information about how to pursue the hearing process in K.S.A. 25-2309(m). Ms. Bucci does not possess a copy of her birth certificate or a passport. She cannot afford the cost of a replacement birth certificate from Maryland and she credibly testified that spending money to obtain one would impact whether she could pay rent. Ms. Bucci's voter registration application was canceled for failure to provide DPOC. She could not vote in the 2014 election, but was able to vote in the 2016 election by operation of the preliminary injunction. Ms. Bucci first learned of the alternative hearing procedure when defense counsel informed her of it during her deposition in this case. She testified that it would be hard for her to even participate in a telephonic hearing because she is not allowed to use her cell phone on a work break.

Plaintiff Charles Stricker is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas, and over 18 years old. He was born in Missouri and has lived in Kansas since late 2013, after a period of living in Chicago. Prior to living in Chicago, Mr. Stricker lived in Kansas and was registered to vote in Kansas during that time. He works as a hotel manager in downtown Wichita. Mr. Stricker applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the Sedgwick County DOV in October 2014. He was told that he had insufficient documentation, and a clerk provided him with a list of documents he needed. Mr. Stricker was attempting to register on the last day of registration before an election, it was so important to him to become registered that he took the day off work to accomplish it. Mr. Stricker rushed home and "grabbed every single document that I could and started shoving them into a file folder to try to get back before the DMV closed," including his birth certificate. He made it back to the DOV in time to complete his application, and recalls telling the clerk that he wanted to register to vote. The DOV clerk did not tell him that he needed any further documentation to register. The clerk printed a small receipt for Mr. Stricker and explained to him that it would be his temporary driver's license until he received his license in the mail. He asked the clerk if there was anything else he needed to do, including whether he needed a voting card. The clerk told him nothing more was necessary. He believed that he was registered to vote.

Mr. Stricker attempted to vote in the 2014 midterm election. He presented his driver's license to the poll worker, but she could not find a record of his registration. He was given a provisional ballot to fill out at an open table with another voter. Mr. Stricker testified that he was confused and embarrassed by the experience. Election day was the first time Mr. Stricker learned that he was not registered to vote. He testified that he learned about the DPOC law sometime later through a press report and wondered if it could explain why he was not allowed to vote. He does not recall receiving any notices from Sedgwick County asking him to provide proof of citizenship.

In 2015, Mr. Stricker's voter registration application was canceled in the ELVIS system. His registration was reinstated by operation of the preliminary injunction on June 22, 2016. At some point in advance of the November 2016 election, Mr. Stricker attempted to check his registration status online and by calling the Sedgwick County election office. The person with whom he spoke told him that it was unclear whether he would be able to vote in the upcoming election because there were legal issues that were still up in the air. When he checked online, there was no record of his registration. On October 26, 2016, the Sedgwick County Election Office sent Mr. Stricker a "Notice of Voter Registration Status." It states:

This notice is to inform you that you have been granted full voter registration status in Kansas and that you are qualified to vote in all official elections in which voters in your precinct are eligible to participate. According to Kansas Statutes Annotated 25, 2309(l), any person registering to vote for the first time in Kansas on or after January 1, 2013, must provide evidence of United States citizenship along with the registration application in order to be granted full registration status. Our records indicate that you submitted a voter registration application during the above-mentioned time period, but you did not provide evidence of your U.S. citizenship. We have since received information from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's Office of Vital Statistics indicating that you have a Kansas birth certificate on file. Based on that determination, your registration status is deemed complete, and we have granted you full voter registration status.

This notice was signed by Tabitha Lehman, the Sedgwick County Election Commissioner. Ms. Lehman testified that, despite Fed. R. Evid. 615 being invoked at the beginning of trial, she read media reports about the trial, including reports of Mr. Stricker's testimony. She testified that ELVIS records indicate Mr. Stricker is active and "fully registered," and that after reviewing his file prior to her testimony, she believes that the notice he received erroneously referenced his Kansas birth certificate, when in fact his citizenship document was in the DOV's database. She testified that in October 2016, just prior to the election, her office had not updated the generic notice sent to applicants whose DPOC was verified by the county to include the DOV database check, a policy that had changed in May 2016. Therefore, between May 2016 when the DOV policy went into effect, and the 2016 election, Sedgwick County--the second largest county in the State--was apparently sending out erroneous and confusing notices to individuals stating that citizenship was confirmed through the department that maintains Kansas birth certificates, when in fact that was not true.

Since the DPOC law was passed, 6 individuals have applied for a hearing under 25-2309(m) with the State Election Board. One of these individuals, Ms. Jo French, lost her birth certificate after moving several times. She testified about the lengthy and burdensome process of registering to vote without a citizenship document. Ms. French's many encounters with the SOS's office led her to characterize her relationship with former-Deputy SOS Eric Rucker as a friendship. She testified that she hoped her testimony would make Defendant "look good." But her testimony contradicted Defendant's position that the DPOC requirement is not burdensome. As she testified, Ms. French's first of many hurdles was to pay $8 for the State of Arkansas to search for her birth certificate to prove that it did not exist, even though she already knew did not exist because she had requested it twice before. Second, she had to collect documents with the help of several other people--her baptismal record through an old friend in Arkansas and school records from her old school district in Arkansas. Third, she spoke with Mr. Rucker, who in turn reached out to her friends and cousin to vouch for her citizenship. Fourth, Ms. French relied on a friend to drive her 40 miles to the hearing; it was difficult for her to drive because she had recently had knee replacement surgery.

Ms. French's hearing before the State Election Board lasted 30 to 35 minutes and was attended by Defendant, the Lieutenant Governor, and a representative from the Kansas Attorney General's office. Also present were members of the media. The entire process from application to the date of her hearing took more than five months. After the hearing, Ms. French was interviewed, and stated: "I just thought it was strange that I had to go through this procedure to be able to vote. And any other state, you go in, throw down your driver's license and that gives you the right to vote. So this was totally off the wall for me. . . . I don't look funny. I don't talk funny, I've been here all my life."

The hearing records contain information on the other four individuals who availed themselves of the hearing process. One established citizenship through a hearing and was represented by retained counsel. Another individual, Mr. Dale Weber, stated that he did not possess DPOC and that procuring such a document would be cost-prohibitive. The State Election Board ultimately accepted an affidavit that Mr. Weber executed on his own behalf as proof of his citizenship, attesting that he had been born on a military base and was a U.S. citizen. The State Election Board apparently found that Mr. Weber's mere attestation was sufficient to establish his citizenship.

---

Note that, after all the unnecessary hurdles imposed by the state, a simple oath turned out to be sufficient after all. These are the kind of people that "election integrity" laws are actually targeting, not mythical alien voters as Republicans would have you believe. The whole purpose is create as many obstacles and disenfranchise as many voters as possible, especially minorities and the poor.

---

This is such bull*****
She couldn't afford to buy a replacement? It literally costs $15 to get a copy from the state of Missouri.
People who don't care enough to get their documents, shouldn't be voting.
It shouldn't be easier to vote than it is to get a pack of cigarettes.

When I was in college I needed to get a passport, but my parents had lost my birth certificate. So I went to the courthouse and paid a few bucks and got a copy. About 8 years ago we moved to a new house. Last year we needed to get a passport for my daughter but we couldn't find her social security card. It was lost during the move. So we spent over 6 months waiting for it to arrive in the mail.
Is it difficult to get replacement documents... not really. Is it an inconvenience... yes.
If someone cannot be bothered to go through a very minor inconvenience, then they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
Everyone should be required to vote in person. It should require SOME level of personal investment.

If youre too lazy to comply.... that's a YOU problem. We don't need to worry about lazy people voting.

---

Don't disagree with you. Just think it is a State issue, not Federal. Even IF Fed can do it, they shouldn't. Leave to States.

---

that's precisely why we are in the situation we are in. Democrat controlled states are cheating.

---

They're not cheating. You just don't like the outcome.

---

Of course they're cheating. by the hundreds of thousands of ballots. documented proof.

You like the cheating because it's justified as a way to beat systemic oppression.

Again: "how can I trust someone who believes in systemic oppression to faithfully administer the parts of the system they control."

---

Can you link the documented proof? So far, not one court case or submitted evidence comes close to those numbers. Thanks.

---

The best way to ensure there's no documented proof is just to throw out the court cases, thus avoiding that pesky submitted evidence. What a concept!

---

Sorry that about asking for some standard data point to discuss. How do you come to any conclusion if there is no common data to work off? Right now, it is hear-say, supposition and conspiracy theory. Barr, Courts, CATO, Brookings, Heritage, etc... No one has turned up any evidence.

If it happened, I would like to know where and who.

---

And the opposite is also true. How can someone claim disenfranchisement when there is no record of disenfranchisement?

How do you amass evidence of voter fraud when the states at issue will not release their voter data?
How do you prove an illegal vote when no identification is required to begin with?
How is it that there are more registered voters in democrat cities than there are eligible voters?
Where did those 10 million people that voted for Biden in 2020 magically amass from and then suddenly disappear?

---

There is not one State that the election fraud theory was proven. Trump has been in office for a year, still nothing. It has to hold up in court that the votes are illegal that is our system

---

I can't help but notice you don't get anywhere here, my friend. Motor is redlined but transmission is in park.

---

You Trump fans live in another reality. Facts and evidence don't go a long way there.

canoso said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

canoso said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's been applied in court but never directly challenged, mainly because actual voting by noncitizens is so vanishingly rare. To enforce a ban preemptively, as this law does, would cause much more widespread problems. Here are a few examples of what happened with a similar law (later held unconstitutional) in Kansas.

Quote:

---

Plaintiff Donna Bucci is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas and over 18 years old. She was born in Baltimore, Maryland. Ms. Bucci has been employed at the Kansas Department of Corrections for the last six years. She is a cook in the prison kitchen on the 3:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. shift. She is provided with limited time off, and must provide two-weeks' notice to use it. In 2013, Ms. Bucci applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the DOV in Sedgwick County, Kansas. The driver's license examiner did not tell Ms. Bucci that she needed to provide proof of citizenship, and did not indicate that she lacked any necessary documentation. When she left the DOV, she believed she had registered to vote. Later, she received a notice in the mail informing her that she needed to show a birth certificate or a passport to become registered to vote. It did not include information about how to pursue the hearing process in K.S.A. 25-2309(m). Ms. Bucci does not possess a copy of her birth certificate or a passport. She cannot afford the cost of a replacement birth certificate from Maryland and she credibly testified that spending money to obtain one would impact whether she could pay rent. Ms. Bucci's voter registration application was canceled for failure to provide DPOC. She could not vote in the 2014 election, but was able to vote in the 2016 election by operation of the preliminary injunction. Ms. Bucci first learned of the alternative hearing procedure when defense counsel informed her of it during her deposition in this case. She testified that it would be hard for her to even participate in a telephonic hearing because she is not allowed to use her cell phone on a work break.

Plaintiff Charles Stricker is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas, and over 18 years old. He was born in Missouri and has lived in Kansas since late 2013, after a period of living in Chicago. Prior to living in Chicago, Mr. Stricker lived in Kansas and was registered to vote in Kansas during that time. He works as a hotel manager in downtown Wichita. Mr. Stricker applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the Sedgwick County DOV in October 2014. He was told that he had insufficient documentation, and a clerk provided him with a list of documents he needed. Mr. Stricker was attempting to register on the last day of registration before an election, it was so important to him to become registered that he took the day off work to accomplish it. Mr. Stricker rushed home and "grabbed every single document that I could and started shoving them into a file folder to try to get back before the DMV closed," including his birth certificate. He made it back to the DOV in time to complete his application, and recalls telling the clerk that he wanted to register to vote. The DOV clerk did not tell him that he needed any further documentation to register. The clerk printed a small receipt for Mr. Stricker and explained to him that it would be his temporary driver's license until he received his license in the mail. He asked the clerk if there was anything else he needed to do, including whether he needed a voting card. The clerk told him nothing more was necessary. He believed that he was registered to vote.

Mr. Stricker attempted to vote in the 2014 midterm election. He presented his driver's license to the poll worker, but she could not find a record of his registration. He was given a provisional ballot to fill out at an open table with another voter. Mr. Stricker testified that he was confused and embarrassed by the experience. Election day was the first time Mr. Stricker learned that he was not registered to vote. He testified that he learned about the DPOC law sometime later through a press report and wondered if it could explain why he was not allowed to vote. He does not recall receiving any notices from Sedgwick County asking him to provide proof of citizenship.

In 2015, Mr. Stricker's voter registration application was canceled in the ELVIS system. His registration was reinstated by operation of the preliminary injunction on June 22, 2016. At some point in advance of the November 2016 election, Mr. Stricker attempted to check his registration status online and by calling the Sedgwick County election office. The person with whom he spoke told him that it was unclear whether he would be able to vote in the upcoming election because there were legal issues that were still up in the air. When he checked online, there was no record of his registration. On October 26, 2016, the Sedgwick County Election Office sent Mr. Stricker a "Notice of Voter Registration Status." It states:

This notice is to inform you that you have been granted full voter registration status in Kansas and that you are qualified to vote in all official elections in which voters in your precinct are eligible to participate. According to Kansas Statutes Annotated 25, 2309(l), any person registering to vote for the first time in Kansas on or after January 1, 2013, must provide evidence of United States citizenship along with the registration application in order to be granted full registration status. Our records indicate that you submitted a voter registration application during the above-mentioned time period, but you did not provide evidence of your U.S. citizenship. We have since received information from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's Office of Vital Statistics indicating that you have a Kansas birth certificate on file. Based on that determination, your registration status is deemed complete, and we have granted you full voter registration status.

This notice was signed by Tabitha Lehman, the Sedgwick County Election Commissioner. Ms. Lehman testified that, despite Fed. R. Evid. 615 being invoked at the beginning of trial, she read media reports about the trial, including reports of Mr. Stricker's testimony. She testified that ELVIS records indicate Mr. Stricker is active and "fully registered," and that after reviewing his file prior to her testimony, she believes that the notice he received erroneously referenced his Kansas birth certificate, when in fact his citizenship document was in the DOV's database. She testified that in October 2016, just prior to the election, her office had not updated the generic notice sent to applicants whose DPOC was verified by the county to include the DOV database check, a policy that had changed in May 2016. Therefore, between May 2016 when the DOV policy went into effect, and the 2016 election, Sedgwick County--the second largest county in the State--was apparently sending out erroneous and confusing notices to individuals stating that citizenship was confirmed through the department that maintains Kansas birth certificates, when in fact that was not true.

Since the DPOC law was passed, 6 individuals have applied for a hearing under 25-2309(m) with the State Election Board. One of these individuals, Ms. Jo French, lost her birth certificate after moving several times. She testified about the lengthy and burdensome process of registering to vote without a citizenship document. Ms. French's many encounters with the SOS's office led her to characterize her relationship with former-Deputy SOS Eric Rucker as a friendship. She testified that she hoped her testimony would make Defendant "look good." But her testimony contradicted Defendant's position that the DPOC requirement is not burdensome. As she testified, Ms. French's first of many hurdles was to pay $8 for the State of Arkansas to search for her birth certificate to prove that it did not exist, even though she already knew did not exist because she had requested it twice before. Second, she had to collect documents with the help of several other people--her baptismal record through an old friend in Arkansas and school records from her old school district in Arkansas. Third, she spoke with Mr. Rucker, who in turn reached out to her friends and cousin to vouch for her citizenship. Fourth, Ms. French relied on a friend to drive her 40 miles to the hearing; it was difficult for her to drive because she had recently had knee replacement surgery.

Ms. French's hearing before the State Election Board lasted 30 to 35 minutes and was attended by Defendant, the Lieutenant Governor, and a representative from the Kansas Attorney General's office. Also present were members of the media. The entire process from application to the date of her hearing took more than five months. After the hearing, Ms. French was interviewed, and stated: "I just thought it was strange that I had to go through this procedure to be able to vote. And any other state, you go in, throw down your driver's license and that gives you the right to vote. So this was totally off the wall for me. . . . I don't look funny. I don't talk funny, I've been here all my life."

The hearing records contain information on the other four individuals who availed themselves of the hearing process. One established citizenship through a hearing and was represented by retained counsel. Another individual, Mr. Dale Weber, stated that he did not possess DPOC and that procuring such a document would be cost-prohibitive. The State Election Board ultimately accepted an affidavit that Mr. Weber executed on his own behalf as proof of his citizenship, attesting that he had been born on a military base and was a U.S. citizen. The State Election Board apparently found that Mr. Weber's mere attestation was sufficient to establish his citizenship.

---

Note that, after all the unnecessary hurdles imposed by the state, a simple oath turned out to be sufficient after all. These are the kind of people that "election integrity" laws are actually targeting, not mythical alien voters as Republicans would have you believe. The whole purpose is create as many obstacles and disenfranchise as many voters as possible, especially minorities and the poor.

---

This is such bull*****
She couldn't afford to buy a replacement? It literally costs $15 to get a copy from the state of Missouri.
People who don't care enough to get their documents, shouldn't be voting.
It shouldn't be easier to vote than it is to get a pack of cigarettes.

When I was in college I needed to get a passport, but my parents had lost my birth certificate. So I went to the courthouse and paid a few bucks and got a copy. About 8 years ago we moved to a new house. Last year we needed to get a passport for my daughter but we couldn't find her social security card. It was lost during the move. So we spent over 6 months waiting for it to arrive in the mail.
Is it difficult to get replacement documents... not really. Is it an inconvenience... yes.
If someone cannot be bothered to go through a very minor inconvenience, then they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
Everyone should be required to vote in person. It should require SOME level of personal investment.

If youre too lazy to comply.... that's a YOU problem. We don't need to worry about lazy people voting.

---

Don't disagree with you. Just think it is a State issue, not Federal. Even IF Fed can do it, they shouldn't. Leave to States.

---

that's precisely why we are in the situation we are in. Democrat controlled states are cheating.

---

They're not cheating. You just don't like the outcome.

---

Of course they're cheating. by the hundreds of thousands of ballots. documented proof.

You like the cheating because it's justified as a way to beat systemic oppression.

Again: "how can I trust someone who believes in systemic oppression to faithfully administer the parts of the system they control."

---

Can you link the documented proof? So far, not one court case or submitted evidence comes close to those numbers. Thanks.

---

The best way to ensure there's no documented proof is just to throw out the court cases, thus avoiding that pesky submitted evidence. What a concept!

---

Sorry that about asking for some standard data point to discuss. How do you come to any conclusion if there is no common data to work off? Right now, it is hear-say, supposition and conspiracy theory. Barr, Courts, CATO, Brookings, Heritage, etc... No one has turned up any evidence.

If it happened, I would like to know where and who.

---

And the opposite is also true. How can someone claim disenfranchisement when there is no record of disenfranchisement?

How do you amass evidence of voter fraud when the states at issue will not release their voter data?
How do you prove an illegal vote when no identification is required to begin with?
How is it that there are more registered voters in democrat cities than there are eligible voters?
Where did those 10 million people that voted for Biden in 2020 magically amass from and then suddenly disappear?

---

There is not one State that the election fraud theory was proven. Trump has been in office for a year, still nothing. It has to hold up in court that the votes are illegal that is our system

---

I can't help but notice you don't get anywhere here, my friend. Motor is redlined but transmission is in park.

---

No, but the echo chamber gets the opposing view. It is what it is. Redline? not even close. : )

Sam Lowry said:

---

canoso said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

canoso said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's been applied in court but never directly challenged, mainly because actual voting by noncitizens is so vanishingly rare. To enforce a ban preemptively, as this law does, would cause much more widespread problems. Here are a few examples of what happened with a similar law (later held unconstitutional) in Kansas.

Quote:

---

Plaintiff Donna Bucci is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas and over 18 years old. She was born in Baltimore, Maryland. Ms. Bucci has been employed at the Kansas Department of Corrections for the last six years. She is a cook in the prison kitchen on the 3:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. shift. She is provided with limited time off, and must provide two-weeks' notice to use it. In 2013, Ms. Bucci applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the DOV in Sedgwick County, Kansas. The driver's license examiner did not tell Ms. Bucci that she needed to provide proof of citizenship, and did not indicate that she lacked any necessary documentation. When she left the DOV, she believed she had registered to vote. Later, she received a notice in the mail informing her that she needed to show a birth certificate or a passport to become registered to vote. It did not include information about how to pursue the hearing process in K.S.A. 25-2309(m). Ms. Bucci does not possess a copy of her birth certificate or a passport. She cannot afford the cost of a replacement birth certificate from Maryland and she credibly testified that spending money to obtain one would impact whether she could pay rent. Ms. Bucci's voter registration application was canceled for failure to provide DPOC. She could not vote in the 2014 election, but was able to vote in the 2016 election by operation of the preliminary injunction. Ms. Bucci first learned of the alternative hearing procedure when defense counsel informed her of it during her deposition in this case. She testified that it would be hard for her to even participate in a telephonic hearing because she is not allowed to use her cell phone on a work break.

Plaintiff Charles Stricker is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas, and over 18 years old. He was born in Missouri and has lived in Kansas since late 2013, after a period of living in Chicago. Prior to living in Chicago, Mr. Stricker lived in Kansas and was registered to vote in Kansas during that time. He works as a hotel manager in downtown Wichita. Mr. Stricker applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the Sedgwick County DOV in October 2014. He was told that he had insufficient documentation, and a clerk provided him with a list of documents he needed. Mr. Stricker was attempting to register on the last day of registration before an election, it was so important to him to become registered that he took the day off work to accomplish it. Mr. Stricker rushed home and "grabbed every single document that I could and started shoving them into a file folder to try to get back before the DMV closed," including his birth certificate. He made it back to the DOV in time to complete his application, and recalls telling the clerk that he wanted to register to vote. The DOV clerk did not tell him that he needed any further documentation to register. The clerk printed a small receipt for Mr. Stricker and explained to him that it would be his temporary driver's license until he received his license in the mail. He asked the clerk if there was anything else he needed to do, including whether he needed a voting card. The clerk told him nothing more was necessary. He believed that he was registered to vote.

Mr. Stricker attempted to vote in the 2014 midterm election. He presented his driver's license to the poll worker, but she could not find a record of his registration. He was given a provisional ballot to fill out at an open table with another voter. Mr. Stricker testified that he was confused and embarrassed by the experience. Election day was the first time Mr. Stricker learned that he was not registered to vote. He testified that he learned about the DPOC law sometime later through a press report and wondered if it could explain why he was not allowed to vote. He does not recall receiving any notices from Sedgwick County asking him to provide proof of citizenship.

In 2015, Mr. Stricker's voter registration application was canceled in the ELVIS system. His registration was reinstated by operation of the preliminary injunction on June 22, 2016. At some point in advance of the November 2016 election, Mr. Stricker attempted to check his registration status online and by calling the Sedgwick County election office. The person with whom he spoke told him that it was unclear whether he would be able to vote in the upcoming election because there were legal issues that were still up in the air. When he checked online, there was no record of his registration. On October 26, 2016, the Sedgwick County Election Office sent Mr. Stricker a "Notice of Voter Registration Status." It states:

This notice is to inform you that you have been granted full voter registration status in Kansas and that you are qualified to vote in all official elections in which voters in your precinct are eligible to participate. According to Kansas Statutes Annotated 25, 2309(l), any person registering to vote for the first time in Kansas on or after January 1, 2013, must provide evidence of United States citizenship along with the registration application in order to be granted full registration status. Our records indicate that you submitted a voter registration application during the above-mentioned time period, but you did not provide evidence of your U.S. citizenship. We have since received information from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's Office of Vital Statistics indicating that you have a Kansas birth certificate on file. Based on that determination, your registration status is deemed complete, and we have granted you full voter registration status.

This notice was signed by Tabitha Lehman, the Sedgwick County Election Commissioner. Ms. Lehman testified that, despite Fed. R. Evid. 615 being invoked at the beginning of trial, she read media reports about the trial, including reports of Mr. Stricker's testimony. She testified that ELVIS records indicate Mr. Stricker is active and "fully registered," and that after reviewing his file prior to her testimony, she believes that the notice he received erroneously referenced his Kansas birth certificate, when in fact his citizenship document was in the DOV's database. She testified that in October 2016, just prior to the election, her office had not updated the generic notice sent to applicants whose DPOC was verified by the county to include the DOV database check, a policy that had changed in May 2016. Therefore, between May 2016 when the DOV policy went into effect, and the 2016 election, Sedgwick County--the second largest county in the State--was apparently sending out erroneous and confusing notices to individuals stating that citizenship was confirmed through the department that maintains Kansas birth certificates, when in fact that was not true.

Since the DPOC law was passed, 6 individuals have applied for a hearing under 25-2309(m) with the State Election Board. One of these individuals, Ms. Jo French, lost her birth certificate after moving several times. She testified about the lengthy and burdensome process of registering to vote without a citizenship document. Ms. French's many encounters with the SOS's office led her to characterize her relationship with former-Deputy SOS Eric Rucker as a friendship. She testified that she hoped her testimony would make Defendant "look good." But her testimony contradicted Defendant's position that the DPOC requirement is not burdensome. As she testified, Ms. French's first of many hurdles was to pay $8 for the State of Arkansas to search for her birth certificate to prove that it did not exist, even though she already knew did not exist because she had requested it twice before. Second, she had to collect documents with the help of several other people--her baptismal record through an old friend in Arkansas and school records from her old school district in Arkansas. Third, she spoke with Mr. Rucker, who in turn reached out to her friends and cousin to vouch for her citizenship. Fourth, Ms. French relied on a friend to drive her 40 miles to the hearing; it was difficult for her to drive because she had recently had knee replacement surgery.

Ms. French's hearing before the State Election Board lasted 30 to 35 minutes and was attended by Defendant, the Lieutenant Governor, and a representative from the Kansas Attorney General's office. Also present were members of the media. The entire process from application to the date of her hearing took more than five months. After the hearing, Ms. French was interviewed, and stated: "I just thought it was strange that I had to go through this procedure to be able to vote. And any other state, you go in, throw down your driver's license and that gives you the right to vote. So this was totally off the wall for me. . . . I don't look funny. I don't talk funny, I've been here all my life."

The hearing records contain information on the other four individuals who availed themselves of the hearing process. One established citizenship through a hearing and was represented by retained counsel. Another individual, Mr. Dale Weber, stated that he did not possess DPOC and that procuring such a document would be cost-prohibitive. The State Election Board ultimately accepted an affidavit that Mr. Weber executed on his own behalf as proof of his citizenship, attesting that he had been born on a military base and was a U.S. citizen. The State Election Board apparently found that Mr. Weber's mere attestation was sufficient to establish his citizenship.

---

Note that, after all the unnecessary hurdles imposed by the state, a simple oath turned out to be sufficient after all. These are the kind of people that "election integrity" laws are actually targeting, not mythical alien voters as Republicans would have you believe. The whole purpose is create as many obstacles and disenfranchise as many voters as possible, especially minorities and the poor.

---

This is such bull*****
She couldn't afford to buy a replacement? It literally costs $15 to get a copy from the state of Missouri.
People who don't care enough to get their documents, shouldn't be voting.
It shouldn't be easier to vote than it is to get a pack of cigarettes.

When I was in college I needed to get a passport, but my parents had lost my birth certificate. So I went to the courthouse and paid a few bucks and got a copy. About 8 years ago we moved to a new house. Last year we needed to get a passport for my daughter but we couldn't find her social security card. It was lost during the move. So we spent over 6 months waiting for it to arrive in the mail.
Is it difficult to get replacement documents... not really. Is it an inconvenience... yes.
If someone cannot be bothered to go through a very minor inconvenience, then they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
Everyone should be required to vote in person. It should require SOME level of personal investment.

If youre too lazy to comply.... that's a YOU problem. We don't need to worry about lazy people voting.

---

Don't disagree with you. Just think it is a State issue, not Federal. Even IF Fed can do it, they shouldn't. Leave to States.

---

that's precisely why we are in the situation we are in. Democrat controlled states are cheating.

---

They're not cheating. You just don't like the outcome.

---

Of course they're cheating. by the hundreds of thousands of ballots. documented proof.

You like the cheating because it's justified as a way to beat systemic oppression.

Again: "how can I trust someone who believes in systemic oppression to faithfully administer the parts of the system they control."

---

Can you link the documented proof? So far, not one court case or submitted evidence comes close to those numbers. Thanks.

---

The best way to ensure there's no documented proof is just to throw out the court cases, thus avoiding that pesky submitted evidence. What a concept!

---

Sorry that about asking for some standard data point to discuss. How do you come to any conclusion if there is no common data to work off? Right now, it is hear-say, supposition and conspiracy theory. Barr, Courts, CATO, Brookings, Heritage, etc... No one has turned up any evidence.

If it happened, I would like to know where and who.

---

And the opposite is also true. How can someone claim disenfranchisement when there is no record of disenfranchisement?

How do you amass evidence of voter fraud when the states at issue will not release their voter data?
How do you prove an illegal vote when no identification is required to begin with?
How is it that there are more registered voters in democrat cities than there are eligible voters?
Where did those 10 million people that voted for Biden in 2020 magically amass from and then suddenly disappear?

---

There is not one State that the election fraud theory was proven. Trump has been in office for a year, still nothing. It has to hold up in court that the votes are illegal that is our system

---

I can't help but notice you don't get anywhere here, my friend. Motor is redlined but transmission is in park.

---

You Trump fans live in another reality. Facts and evidence don't go a long way there.

---

The irony here is beyond belief.

Also keep in mind that someone who lies to his/her own congregation about being a Roman Catholic is lecturing to us about there being no "fraud" in the election. And the irony just thickens all the more.

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There has never really been a forensic examination of ballots that could verify that all votes came from people who actually intended to vote, or that the ballot reflected who they actually wanted to vote for. It's way too easy to take advantage of the elderly, the infirm, the homeless, etc in this way. You'd be a fool if you didn't believe this happened in an election year where you could just mail in your votes or drop it off at 2 AM in an unsecured public box.

---

It was a perfect storm of COVID and clever politics. Voter ID would not have solved that, as each vote was a real person.

---

Where is that evidence?

---

So now the burden is proving they are legal?

---

If there is fraud, a ballot might not indicate a real voter cast the vote. Ballots need safeguards to make sure there really is a voter behind it. Otherwise you have the old "stuffing the ballot box." The 2020 mass mail in ballots and ballot boxes left the field wide open for stuffing the ballot box. It could never be reasonably proven that did not happen. There was a good deal of smoke around that indicated it did. recounting what the machines counted is not an adequate check. All ballots needed individual checking which did not happen. Too many were already deleted in some cases.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There has never really been a forensic examination of ballots that could verify that all votes came from people who actually intended to vote, or that the ballot reflected who they actually wanted to vote for. It's way too easy to take advantage of the elderly, the infirm, the homeless, etc in this way. You'd be a fool if you didn't believe this happened in an election year where you could just mail in your votes or drop it off at 2 AM in an unsecured public box.

---

It was a perfect storm of COVID and clever politics. Voter ID would not have solved that, as each vote was a real person.

---

Where is that evidence?

---

So now the burden is proving they are legal?

---

If there is fraud, a ballot might not indicate a real voter cast the vote. Ballots need safeguards to make sure there really is a voter behind it. Otherwise you have the old "stuffing the ballot box." The 2020 mass mail in ballots and ballot boxes left the field wide open for stuffing the ballot box. It could never be reasonably proven that did not happen. There was a good deal of smoke around that indicated it did. recounting what the machines counted is not an adequate check. All ballots needed individual checking which did not happen. Too many were already deleted in some cases.

---

I have no idea, neither does anyone here. It is all speculation, go to the Heritage tracking of voter fraud, it is miniscule and does not come close to flipping a State.

2020 was done using techniques that wont happen again, but both sides had the same rules.

If Congress passes an ID law, it will stand. But it has to be a law. No EO. We will regret sceding all this power to the Fed.

I don't see anyway it passes.

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There has never really been a forensic examination of ballots that could verify that all votes came from people who actually intended to vote, or that the ballot reflected who they actually wanted to vote for. It's way too easy to take advantage of the elderly, the infirm, the homeless, etc in this way. You'd be a fool if you didn't believe this happened in an election year where you could just mail in your votes or drop it off at 2 AM in an unsecured public box.

---

It was a perfect storm of COVID and clever politics. Voter ID would not have solved that, as each vote was a real person.

---

Where is that evidence?

---

So now the burden is proving they are legal?

---

If there is fraud, a ballot might not indicate a real voter cast the vote. Ballots need safeguards to make sure there really is a voter behind it. Otherwise you have the old "stuffing the ballot box." The 2020 mass mail in ballots and ballot boxes left the field wide open for stuffing the ballot box. It could never be reasonably proven that did not happen. There was a good deal of smoke around that indicated it did. recounting what the machines counted is not an adequate check. All ballots needed individual checking which did not happen. Too many were already deleted in some cases.

---

I have no idea, neither does anyone here. It is all speculation, go to the Heritage tracking of voter fraud, it is miniscule and does not come close to flipping a State.

2020 was done using techniques that wont happen again, but both sides had the same rules.

If Congress passes an ID law, it will stand. But it has to be a law. No EO. We will regret sceding all this power to the Fed.

I don't see anyway it passes.

---

4 states, including California and Nevada who now take weeks to tally votes, retained their mailing out of ballots to all voters on their voter rolls after COVID. 3 states already were doing this before COVID: Washington, Oregon, and Utah. Utah ended their universal ballot mailing in 2025.

Ballot drop boxes are now required in 13 states and encouraged in 16 states. Oregon had some vandalized (burned) in the last election disenfranchising all voters whose ballots were there, and highlighting inadequate security for them.

To state that mail ballots (the main object of state Covid rule changes) were not more prevalent after Covid is certainly a mistaken position.

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

EatMoreSalmon said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

GrowlTowel said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

There has never really been a forensic examination of ballots that could verify that all votes came from people who actually intended to vote, or that the ballot reflected who they actually wanted to vote for. It's way too easy to take advantage of the elderly, the infirm, the homeless, etc in this way. You'd be a fool if you didn't believe this happened in an election year where you could just mail in your votes or drop it off at 2 AM in an unsecured public box.

---

It was a perfect storm of COVID and clever politics. Voter ID would not have solved that, as each vote was a real person.

---

Where is that evidence?

---

So now the burden is proving they are legal?

---

If there is fraud, a ballot might not indicate a real voter cast the vote. Ballots need safeguards to make sure there really is a voter behind it. Otherwise you have the old "stuffing the ballot box." The 2020 mass mail in ballots and ballot boxes left the field wide open for stuffing the ballot box. It could never be reasonably proven that did not happen. There was a good deal of smoke around that indicated it did. recounting what the machines counted is not an adequate check. All ballots needed individual checking which did not happen. Too many were already deleted in some cases.

---

I have no idea, neither does anyone here. It is all speculation, go to the Heritage tracking of voter fraud, it is miniscule and does not come close to flipping a State.

2020 was done using techniques that wont happen again, but both sides had the same rules.

If Congress passes an ID law, it will stand. But it has to be a law. No EO. We will regret sceding all this power to the Fed.

I don't see anyway it passes.

---

4 states, including California and Nevada who now take weeks to tally votes, retained their mailing out of ballots to all voters on their voter rolls after COVID. 3 states already were doing this before COVID: Washington, Oregon, and Utah. Utah ended their universal ballot mailing in 2025.

Ballot drop boxes are now required in 13 states and encouraged in 16 states. Oregon had some vandalized (burned) in the last election disenfranchising all voters whose ballots were there, and highlighting inadequate security for them.

To state that mail ballots (the main object of state Covid rule changes) were not more prevalent after Covid is certainly a mistaken position.

---

Whatever rules that are in place are there for both sides. GOP need to take advantage as the Dems do.

As for the burned drop boxes, that is a felony. Prosecute them. That is a separate issue from the State voting rules. States set the rules. GOP need to be active and follow same rules, not play victim and take State powers for the Fed. Does TX want Fed running their elections? Hell, Cities in TX don't want State in their business. Now the Fed?

If I were gonna cheat in an election, it wouldn't be one vote at a time. I can't think of a less effective way to cheat. That's similar to robbing the bodega of 500 scratch-offs, then taking them to the lottery to cash in. I remember early on in the Texas lottery, a woman changed the number on the front of her ticket without understanding all of the validation and security measures in the barcoding.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

If I were gonna cheat in an election, it wouldn't be one vote at a time. I can't think of a less effective way to cheat. That's similar to robbing the bodega of 500 scratch-offs, then taking them to the lottery to cash in. I remember early on in the Texas lottery, a woman changed the number on the front of her ticket without understanding all of the validation and security measures in the barcoding.

---

That is the point, no analysis or court case has proven that large scale cheating has occurred.

If we want ID voting, fine. We have to show ID for a plethora of things. I have no issues with it.

What has bothered me about this Administration is their desire and this Board's support to change rules for them, with no thought of the next Administration. When Biden was in and in 2020 this Board railed against the abusive nature of a large, strong Federal Government that took States rights away. Think Roe vs Wade and how abortion is a "State" function.

The move for this now, tells me that Trump is not comfortable with the way the midterms are looking. So, he wants Fed control, him in control. People should be wary. ID to vote in and of itself makes sense, even in, I think all, the 13 States you have to show ID the first time you vote.

My point is: How much do we want the Fed in our lives? Not, this one issue works in our favor, so change the rule. Only to ***** about it in 3 years when it works against Conservatives.

I just re-upped my vote by mail on-line.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's been applied in court but never directly challenged, mainly because actual voting by noncitizens is so vanishingly rare. To enforce a ban preemptively, as this law does, would cause much more widespread problems. Here are a few examples of what happened with a similar law (later held unconstitutional) in Kansas.

Quote:

---

Plaintiff Donna Bucci is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas and over 18 years old. She was born in Baltimore, Maryland. Ms. Bucci has been employed at the Kansas Department of Corrections for the last six years. She is a cook in the prison kitchen on the 3:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. shift. She is provided with limited time off, and must provide two-weeks' notice to use it. In 2013, Ms. Bucci applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the DOV in Sedgwick County, Kansas. The driver's license examiner did not tell Ms. Bucci that she needed to provide proof of citizenship, and did not indicate that she lacked any necessary documentation. When she left the DOV, she believed she had registered to vote. Later, she received a notice in the mail informing her that she needed to show a birth certificate or a passport to become registered to vote. It did not include information about how to pursue the hearing process in K.S.A. 25-2309(m). Ms. Bucci does not possess a copy of her birth certificate or a passport. She cannot afford the cost of a replacement birth certificate from Maryland and she credibly testified that spending money to obtain one would impact whether she could pay rent. Ms. Bucci's voter registration application was canceled for failure to provide DPOC. She could not vote in the 2014 election, but was able to vote in the 2016 election by operation of the preliminary injunction. Ms. Bucci first learned of the alternative hearing procedure when defense counsel informed her of it during her deposition in this case. She testified that it would be hard for her to even participate in a telephonic hearing because she is not allowed to use her cell phone on a work break.

Plaintiff Charles Stricker is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas, and over 18 years old. He was born in Missouri and has lived in Kansas since late 2013, after a period of living in Chicago. Prior to living in Chicago, Mr. Stricker lived in Kansas and was registered to vote in Kansas during that time. He works as a hotel manager in downtown Wichita. Mr. Stricker applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the Sedgwick County DOV in October 2014. He was told that he had insufficient documentation, and a clerk provided him with a list of documents he needed. Mr. Stricker was attempting to register on the last day of registration before an election, it was so important to him to become registered that he took the day off work to accomplish it. Mr. Stricker rushed home and "grabbed every single document that I could and started shoving them into a file folder to try to get back before the DMV closed," including his birth certificate. He made it back to the DOV in time to complete his application, and recalls telling the clerk that he wanted to register to vote. The DOV clerk did not tell him that he needed any further documentation to register. The clerk printed a small receipt for Mr. Stricker and explained to him that it would be his temporary driver's license until he received his license in the mail. He asked the clerk if there was anything else he needed to do, including whether he needed a voting card. The clerk told him nothing more was necessary. He believed that he was registered to vote.

Mr. Stricker attempted to vote in the 2014 midterm election. He presented his driver's license to the poll worker, but she could not find a record of his registration. He was given a provisional ballot to fill out at an open table with another voter. Mr. Stricker testified that he was confused and embarrassed by the experience. Election day was the first time Mr. Stricker learned that he was not registered to vote. He testified that he learned about the DPOC law sometime later through a press report and wondered if it could explain why he was not allowed to vote. He does not recall receiving any notices from Sedgwick County asking him to provide proof of citizenship.

In 2015, Mr. Stricker's voter registration application was canceled in the ELVIS system. His registration was reinstated by operation of the preliminary injunction on June 22, 2016. At some point in advance of the November 2016 election, Mr. Stricker attempted to check his registration status online and by calling the Sedgwick County election office. The person with whom he spoke told him that it was unclear whether he would be able to vote in the upcoming election because there were legal issues that were still up in the air. When he checked online, there was no record of his registration. On October 26, 2016, the Sedgwick County Election Office sent Mr. Stricker a "Notice of Voter Registration Status." It states:

This notice is to inform you that you have been granted full voter registration status in Kansas and that you are qualified to vote in all official elections in which voters in your precinct are eligible to participate. According to Kansas Statutes Annotated 25, 2309(l), any person registering to vote for the first time in Kansas on or after January 1, 2013, must provide evidence of United States citizenship along with the registration application in order to be granted full registration status. Our records indicate that you submitted a voter registration application during the above-mentioned time period, but you did not provide evidence of your U.S. citizenship. We have since received information from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's Office of Vital Statistics indicating that you have a Kansas birth certificate on file. Based on that determination, your registration status is deemed complete, and we have granted you full voter registration status.

This notice was signed by Tabitha Lehman, the Sedgwick County Election Commissioner. Ms. Lehman testified that, despite Fed. R. Evid. 615 being invoked at the beginning of trial, she read media reports about the trial, including reports of Mr. Stricker's testimony. She testified that ELVIS records indicate Mr. Stricker is active and "fully registered," and that after reviewing his file prior to her testimony, she believes that the notice he received erroneously referenced his Kansas birth certificate, when in fact his citizenship document was in the DOV's database. She testified that in October 2016, just prior to the election, her office had not updated the generic notice sent to applicants whose DPOC was verified by the county to include the DOV database check, a policy that had changed in May 2016. Therefore, between May 2016 when the DOV policy went into effect, and the 2016 election, Sedgwick County--the second largest county in the State--was apparently sending out erroneous and confusing notices to individuals stating that citizenship was confirmed through the department that maintains Kansas birth certificates, when in fact that was not true.

Since the DPOC law was passed, 6 individuals have applied for a hearing under 25-2309(m) with the State Election Board. One of these individuals, Ms. Jo French, lost her birth certificate after moving several times. She testified about the lengthy and burdensome process of registering to vote without a citizenship document. Ms. French's many encounters with the SOS's office led her to characterize her relationship with former-Deputy SOS Eric Rucker as a friendship. She testified that she hoped her testimony would make Defendant "look good." But her testimony contradicted Defendant's position that the DPOC requirement is not burdensome. As she testified, Ms. French's first of many hurdles was to pay $8 for the State of Arkansas to search for her birth certificate to prove that it did not exist, even though she already knew did not exist because she had requested it twice before. Second, she had to collect documents with the help of several other people--her baptismal record through an old friend in Arkansas and school records from her old school district in Arkansas. Third, she spoke with Mr. Rucker, who in turn reached out to her friends and cousin to vouch for her citizenship. Fourth, Ms. French relied on a friend to drive her 40 miles to the hearing; it was difficult for her to drive because she had recently had knee replacement surgery.

Ms. French's hearing before the State Election Board lasted 30 to 35 minutes and was attended by Defendant, the Lieutenant Governor, and a representative from the Kansas Attorney General's office. Also present were members of the media. The entire process from application to the date of her hearing took more than five months. After the hearing, Ms. French was interviewed, and stated: "I just thought it was strange that I had to go through this procedure to be able to vote. And any other state, you go in, throw down your driver's license and that gives you the right to vote. So this was totally off the wall for me. . . . I don't look funny. I don't talk funny, I've been here all my life."

The hearing records contain information on the other four individuals who availed themselves of the hearing process. One established citizenship through a hearing and was represented by retained counsel. Another individual, Mr. Dale Weber, stated that he did not possess DPOC and that procuring such a document would be cost-prohibitive. The State Election Board ultimately accepted an affidavit that Mr. Weber executed on his own behalf as proof of his citizenship, attesting that he had been born on a military base and was a U.S. citizen. The State Election Board apparently found that Mr. Weber's mere attestation was sufficient to establish his citizenship.

---

Note that, after all the unnecessary hurdles imposed by the state, a simple oath turned out to be sufficient after all. These are the kind of people that "election integrity" laws are actually targeting, not mythical alien voters as Republicans would have you believe. The whole purpose is create as many obstacles and disenfranchise as many voters as possible, especially minorities and the poor.

---

This is such bull*****
She couldn't afford to buy a replacement? It literally costs $15 to get a copy from the state of Missouri.
People who don't care enough to get their documents, shouldn't be voting.
It shouldn't be easier to vote than it is to get a pack of cigarettes.

When I was in college I needed to get a passport, but my parents had lost my birth certificate. So I went to the courthouse and paid a few bucks and got a copy. About 8 years ago we moved to a new house. Last year we needed to get a passport for my daughter but we couldn't find her social security card. It was lost during the move. So we spent over 6 months waiting for it to arrive in the mail.
Is it difficult to get replacement documents... not really. Is it an inconvenience... yes.
If someone cannot be bothered to go through a very minor inconvenience, then they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
Everyone should be required to vote in person. It should require SOME level of personal investment.

If youre too lazy to comply.... that's a YOU problem. We don't need to worry about lazy people voting.

---

Don't disagree with you. Just think it is a State issue, not Federal. Even IF Fed can do it, they shouldn't. Leave to States.

---

that's precisely why we are in the situation we are in. Democrat controlled states are cheating.

---

They're not cheating. You just don't like the outcome.

---

Of course they're cheating. by the hundreds of thousands of ballots. documented proof.

You like the cheating because it's justified as a way to beat systemic oppression.

Again: "how can I trust someone who believes in systemic oppression to faithfully administer the parts of the system they control."

---

Can you link the documented proof? So far, not one court case or submitted evidence comes close to those numbers. Thanks.

---

you should follow the news more.

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's been applied in court but never directly challenged, mainly because actual voting by noncitizens is so vanishingly rare. To enforce a ban preemptively, as this law does, would cause much more widespread problems. Here are a few examples of what happened with a similar law (later held unconstitutional) in Kansas.

Quote:

---

Plaintiff Donna Bucci is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas and over 18 years old. She was born in Baltimore, Maryland. Ms. Bucci has been employed at the Kansas Department of Corrections for the last six years. She is a cook in the prison kitchen on the 3:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. shift. She is provided with limited time off, and must provide two-weeks' notice to use it. In 2013, Ms. Bucci applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the DOV in Sedgwick County, Kansas. The driver's license examiner did not tell Ms. Bucci that she needed to provide proof of citizenship, and did not indicate that she lacked any necessary documentation. When she left the DOV, she believed she had registered to vote. Later, she received a notice in the mail informing her that she needed to show a birth certificate or a passport to become registered to vote. It did not include information about how to pursue the hearing process in K.S.A. 25-2309(m). Ms. Bucci does not possess a copy of her birth certificate or a passport. She cannot afford the cost of a replacement birth certificate from Maryland and she credibly testified that spending money to obtain one would impact whether she could pay rent. Ms. Bucci's voter registration application was canceled for failure to provide DPOC. She could not vote in the 2014 election, but was able to vote in the 2016 election by operation of the preliminary injunction. Ms. Bucci first learned of the alternative hearing procedure when defense counsel informed her of it during her deposition in this case. She testified that it would be hard for her to even participate in a telephonic hearing because she is not allowed to use her cell phone on a work break.

Plaintiff Charles Stricker is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas, and over 18 years old. He was born in Missouri and has lived in Kansas since late 2013, after a period of living in Chicago. Prior to living in Chicago, Mr. Stricker lived in Kansas and was registered to vote in Kansas during that time. He works as a hotel manager in downtown Wichita. Mr. Stricker applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the Sedgwick County DOV in October 2014. He was told that he had insufficient documentation, and a clerk provided him with a list of documents he needed. Mr. Stricker was attempting to register on the last day of registration before an election, it was so important to him to become registered that he took the day off work to accomplish it. Mr. Stricker rushed home and "grabbed every single document that I could and started shoving them into a file folder to try to get back before the DMV closed," including his birth certificate. He made it back to the DOV in time to complete his application, and recalls telling the clerk that he wanted to register to vote. The DOV clerk did not tell him that he needed any further documentation to register. The clerk printed a small receipt for Mr. Stricker and explained to him that it would be his temporary driver's license until he received his license in the mail. He asked the clerk if there was anything else he needed to do, including whether he needed a voting card. The clerk told him nothing more was necessary. He believed that he was registered to vote.

Mr. Stricker attempted to vote in the 2014 midterm election. He presented his driver's license to the poll worker, but she could not find a record of his registration. He was given a provisional ballot to fill out at an open table with another voter. Mr. Stricker testified that he was confused and embarrassed by the experience. Election day was the first time Mr. Stricker learned that he was not registered to vote. He testified that he learned about the DPOC law sometime later through a press report and wondered if it could explain why he was not allowed to vote. He does not recall receiving any notices from Sedgwick County asking him to provide proof of citizenship.

In 2015, Mr. Stricker's voter registration application was canceled in the ELVIS system. His registration was reinstated by operation of the preliminary injunction on June 22, 2016. At some point in advance of the November 2016 election, Mr. Stricker attempted to check his registration status online and by calling the Sedgwick County election office. The person with whom he spoke told him that it was unclear whether he would be able to vote in the upcoming election because there were legal issues that were still up in the air. When he checked online, there was no record of his registration. On October 26, 2016, the Sedgwick County Election Office sent Mr. Stricker a "Notice of Voter Registration Status." It states:

This notice is to inform you that you have been granted full voter registration status in Kansas and that you are qualified to vote in all official elections in which voters in your precinct are eligible to participate. According to Kansas Statutes Annotated 25, 2309(l), any person registering to vote for the first time in Kansas on or after January 1, 2013, must provide evidence of United States citizenship along with the registration application in order to be granted full registration status. Our records indicate that you submitted a voter registration application during the above-mentioned time period, but you did not provide evidence of your U.S. citizenship. We have since received information from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's Office of Vital Statistics indicating that you have a Kansas birth certificate on file. Based on that determination, your registration status is deemed complete, and we have granted you full voter registration status.

This notice was signed by Tabitha Lehman, the Sedgwick County Election Commissioner. Ms. Lehman testified that, despite Fed. R. Evid. 615 being invoked at the beginning of trial, she read media reports about the trial, including reports of Mr. Stricker's testimony. She testified that ELVIS records indicate Mr. Stricker is active and "fully registered," and that after reviewing his file prior to her testimony, she believes that the notice he received erroneously referenced his Kansas birth certificate, when in fact his citizenship document was in the DOV's database. She testified that in October 2016, just prior to the election, her office had not updated the generic notice sent to applicants whose DPOC was verified by the county to include the DOV database check, a policy that had changed in May 2016. Therefore, between May 2016 when the DOV policy went into effect, and the 2016 election, Sedgwick County--the second largest county in the State--was apparently sending out erroneous and confusing notices to individuals stating that citizenship was confirmed through the department that maintains Kansas birth certificates, when in fact that was not true.

Since the DPOC law was passed, 6 individuals have applied for a hearing under 25-2309(m) with the State Election Board. One of these individuals, Ms. Jo French, lost her birth certificate after moving several times. She testified about the lengthy and burdensome process of registering to vote without a citizenship document. Ms. French's many encounters with the SOS's office led her to characterize her relationship with former-Deputy SOS Eric Rucker as a friendship. She testified that she hoped her testimony would make Defendant "look good." But her testimony contradicted Defendant's position that the DPOC requirement is not burdensome. As she testified, Ms. French's first of many hurdles was to pay $8 for the State of Arkansas to search for her birth certificate to prove that it did not exist, even though she already knew did not exist because she had requested it twice before. Second, she had to collect documents with the help of several other people--her baptismal record through an old friend in Arkansas and school records from her old school district in Arkansas. Third, she spoke with Mr. Rucker, who in turn reached out to her friends and cousin to vouch for her citizenship. Fourth, Ms. French relied on a friend to drive her 40 miles to the hearing; it was difficult for her to drive because she had recently had knee replacement surgery.

Ms. French's hearing before the State Election Board lasted 30 to 35 minutes and was attended by Defendant, the Lieutenant Governor, and a representative from the Kansas Attorney General's office. Also present were members of the media. The entire process from application to the date of her hearing took more than five months. After the hearing, Ms. French was interviewed, and stated: "I just thought it was strange that I had to go through this procedure to be able to vote. And any other state, you go in, throw down your driver's license and that gives you the right to vote. So this was totally off the wall for me. . . . I don't look funny. I don't talk funny, I've been here all my life."

The hearing records contain information on the other four individuals who availed themselves of the hearing process. One established citizenship through a hearing and was represented by retained counsel. Another individual, Mr. Dale Weber, stated that he did not possess DPOC and that procuring such a document would be cost-prohibitive. The State Election Board ultimately accepted an affidavit that Mr. Weber executed on his own behalf as proof of his citizenship, attesting that he had been born on a military base and was a U.S. citizen. The State Election Board apparently found that Mr. Weber's mere attestation was sufficient to establish his citizenship.

---

Note that, after all the unnecessary hurdles imposed by the state, a simple oath turned out to be sufficient after all. These are the kind of people that "election integrity" laws are actually targeting, not mythical alien voters as Republicans would have you believe. The whole purpose is create as many obstacles and disenfranchise as many voters as possible, especially minorities and the poor.

---

This is such bull*****
She couldn't afford to buy a replacement? It literally costs $15 to get a copy from the state of Missouri.
People who don't care enough to get their documents, shouldn't be voting.
It shouldn't be easier to vote than it is to get a pack of cigarettes.

When I was in college I needed to get a passport, but my parents had lost my birth certificate. So I went to the courthouse and paid a few bucks and got a copy. About 8 years ago we moved to a new house. Last year we needed to get a passport for my daughter but we couldn't find her social security card. It was lost during the move. So we spent over 6 months waiting for it to arrive in the mail.
Is it difficult to get replacement documents... not really. Is it an inconvenience... yes.
If someone cannot be bothered to go through a very minor inconvenience, then they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
Everyone should be required to vote in person. It should require SOME level of personal investment.

If youre too lazy to comply.... that's a YOU problem. We don't need to worry about lazy people voting.

---

Don't disagree with you. Just think it is a State issue, not Federal. Even IF Fed can do it, they shouldn't. Leave to States.

---

that's precisely why we are in the situation we are in. Democrat controlled states are cheating.

---

They're not cheating. You just don't like the outcome.

---

Of course they're cheating. by the hundreds of thousands of ballots. documented proof.

You like the cheating because it's justified as a way to beat systemic oppression.

Again: "how can I trust someone who believes in systemic oppression to faithfully administer the parts of the system they control."

---

Can you link the documented proof? So far, not one court case or submitted evidence comes close to those numbers. Thanks.

---

you should follow the news more.

---

How many States have been overturned?

This has been going on for 5 years. Nothing changed from that election, no matter how many of these posts you put up. I know it is a million person conspiracy against Trump. Got it.

I am done trying to have discussions on this. I will go with Bill Barr, the AG at the time and lifelong Conservative.

My position is States need to update their election processes, like Florida did after the "haning chad". Until we have a law saying otherwise, that is the law of the land. Out...

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

If I were gonna cheat in an election, it wouldn't be one vote at a time. I can't think of a less effective way to cheat. That's similar to robbing the bodega of 500 scratch-offs, then taking them to the lottery to cash in. I remember early on in the Texas lottery, a woman changed the number on the front of her ticket without understanding all of the validation and security measures in the barcoding.

---

When you do it one vote at a time with a few hundred people all filling in fake mail in ballots or going to get illegals to vote or however it is being done it quickly adds up.

It is like the question of $10,000 now or $100 invested for X years. (Or whatever the numbers are) that shows how people jump at the large number failing to realize the invested number generates much more money long term.

---

What you're suggesting is a horrible ROI. Let's assume you're in Waco and I get 100 illegal votes for a Dem candidate. (And I know criminals don't think like this) But what election do you know I can flip with200 illegal votes?

What saddens me is that these measures are more likely to disenfranchise 1000 voters than stop 10 illegal voters.

The very same people who claim Trump wants to be king and deporting illegals is really the Holocaust in disguise now say that voter fraud is just a myth.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's been applied in court but never directly challenged, mainly because actual voting by noncitizens is so vanishingly rare. To enforce a ban preemptively, as this law does, would cause much more widespread problems. Here are a few examples of what happened with a similar law (later held unconstitutional) in Kansas.

Quote:

---

Plaintiff Donna Bucci is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas and over 18 years old. She was born in Baltimore, Maryland. Ms. Bucci has been employed at the Kansas Department of Corrections for the last six years. She is a cook in the prison kitchen on the 3:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. shift. She is provided with limited time off, and must provide two-weeks' notice to use it. In 2013, Ms. Bucci applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the DOV in Sedgwick County, Kansas. The driver's license examiner did not tell Ms. Bucci that she needed to provide proof of citizenship, and did not indicate that she lacked any necessary documentation. When she left the DOV, she believed she had registered to vote. Later, she received a notice in the mail informing her that she needed to show a birth certificate or a passport to become registered to vote. It did not include information about how to pursue the hearing process in K.S.A. 25-2309(m). Ms. Bucci does not possess a copy of her birth certificate or a passport. She cannot afford the cost of a replacement birth certificate from Maryland and she credibly testified that spending money to obtain one would impact whether she could pay rent. Ms. Bucci's voter registration application was canceled for failure to provide DPOC. She could not vote in the 2014 election, but was able to vote in the 2016 election by operation of the preliminary injunction. Ms. Bucci first learned of the alternative hearing procedure when defense counsel informed her of it during her deposition in this case. She testified that it would be hard for her to even participate in a telephonic hearing because she is not allowed to use her cell phone on a work break.

Plaintiff Charles Stricker is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas, and over 18 years old. He was born in Missouri and has lived in Kansas since late 2013, after a period of living in Chicago. Prior to living in Chicago, Mr. Stricker lived in Kansas and was registered to vote in Kansas during that time. He works as a hotel manager in downtown Wichita. Mr. Stricker applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the Sedgwick County DOV in October 2014. He was told that he had insufficient documentation, and a clerk provided him with a list of documents he needed. Mr. Stricker was attempting to register on the last day of registration before an election, it was so important to him to become registered that he took the day off work to accomplish it. Mr. Stricker rushed home and "grabbed every single document that I could and started shoving them into a file folder to try to get back before the DMV closed," including his birth certificate. He made it back to the DOV in time to complete his application, and recalls telling the clerk that he wanted to register to vote. The DOV clerk did not tell him that he needed any further documentation to register. The clerk printed a small receipt for Mr. Stricker and explained to him that it would be his temporary driver's license until he received his license in the mail. He asked the clerk if there was anything else he needed to do, including whether he needed a voting card. The clerk told him nothing more was necessary. He believed that he was registered to vote.

Mr. Stricker attempted to vote in the 2014 midterm election. He presented his driver's license to the poll worker, but she could not find a record of his registration. He was given a provisional ballot to fill out at an open table with another voter. Mr. Stricker testified that he was confused and embarrassed by the experience. Election day was the first time Mr. Stricker learned that he was not registered to vote. He testified that he learned about the DPOC law sometime later through a press report and wondered if it could explain why he was not allowed to vote. He does not recall receiving any notices from Sedgwick County asking him to provide proof of citizenship.

In 2015, Mr. Stricker's voter registration application was canceled in the ELVIS system. His registration was reinstated by operation of the preliminary injunction on June 22, 2016. At some point in advance of the November 2016 election, Mr. Stricker attempted to check his registration status online and by calling the Sedgwick County election office. The person with whom he spoke told him that it was unclear whether he would be able to vote in the upcoming election because there were legal issues that were still up in the air. When he checked online, there was no record of his registration. On October 26, 2016, the Sedgwick County Election Office sent Mr. Stricker a "Notice of Voter Registration Status." It states:

This notice is to inform you that you have been granted full voter registration status in Kansas and that you are qualified to vote in all official elections in which voters in your precinct are eligible to participate. According to Kansas Statutes Annotated 25, 2309(l), any person registering to vote for the first time in Kansas on or after January 1, 2013, must provide evidence of United States citizenship along with the registration application in order to be granted full registration status. Our records indicate that you submitted a voter registration application during the above-mentioned time period, but you did not provide evidence of your U.S. citizenship. We have since received information from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's Office of Vital Statistics indicating that you have a Kansas birth certificate on file. Based on that determination, your registration status is deemed complete, and we have granted you full voter registration status.

This notice was signed by Tabitha Lehman, the Sedgwick County Election Commissioner. Ms. Lehman testified that, despite Fed. R. Evid. 615 being invoked at the beginning of trial, she read media reports about the trial, including reports of Mr. Stricker's testimony. She testified that ELVIS records indicate Mr. Stricker is active and "fully registered," and that after reviewing his file prior to her testimony, she believes that the notice he received erroneously referenced his Kansas birth certificate, when in fact his citizenship document was in the DOV's database. She testified that in October 2016, just prior to the election, her office had not updated the generic notice sent to applicants whose DPOC was verified by the county to include the DOV database check, a policy that had changed in May 2016. Therefore, between May 2016 when the DOV policy went into effect, and the 2016 election, Sedgwick County--the second largest county in the State--was apparently sending out erroneous and confusing notices to individuals stating that citizenship was confirmed through the department that maintains Kansas birth certificates, when in fact that was not true.

Since the DPOC law was passed, 6 individuals have applied for a hearing under 25-2309(m) with the State Election Board. One of these individuals, Ms. Jo French, lost her birth certificate after moving several times. She testified about the lengthy and burdensome process of registering to vote without a citizenship document. Ms. French's many encounters with the SOS's office led her to characterize her relationship with former-Deputy SOS Eric Rucker as a friendship. She testified that she hoped her testimony would make Defendant "look good." But her testimony contradicted Defendant's position that the DPOC requirement is not burdensome. As she testified, Ms. French's first of many hurdles was to pay $8 for the State of Arkansas to search for her birth certificate to prove that it did not exist, even though she already knew did not exist because she had requested it twice before. Second, she had to collect documents with the help of several other people--her baptismal record through an old friend in Arkansas and school records from her old school district in Arkansas. Third, she spoke with Mr. Rucker, who in turn reached out to her friends and cousin to vouch for her citizenship. Fourth, Ms. French relied on a friend to drive her 40 miles to the hearing; it was difficult for her to drive because she had recently had knee replacement surgery.

Ms. French's hearing before the State Election Board lasted 30 to 35 minutes and was attended by Defendant, the Lieutenant Governor, and a representative from the Kansas Attorney General's office. Also present were members of the media. The entire process from application to the date of her hearing took more than five months. After the hearing, Ms. French was interviewed, and stated: "I just thought it was strange that I had to go through this procedure to be able to vote. And any other state, you go in, throw down your driver's license and that gives you the right to vote. So this was totally off the wall for me. . . . I don't look funny. I don't talk funny, I've been here all my life."

The hearing records contain information on the other four individuals who availed themselves of the hearing process. One established citizenship through a hearing and was represented by retained counsel. Another individual, Mr. Dale Weber, stated that he did not possess DPOC and that procuring such a document would be cost-prohibitive. The State Election Board ultimately accepted an affidavit that Mr. Weber executed on his own behalf as proof of his citizenship, attesting that he had been born on a military base and was a U.S. citizen. The State Election Board apparently found that Mr. Weber's mere attestation was sufficient to establish his citizenship.

---

Note that, after all the unnecessary hurdles imposed by the state, a simple oath turned out to be sufficient after all. These are the kind of people that "election integrity" laws are actually targeting, not mythical alien voters as Republicans would have you believe. The whole purpose is create as many obstacles and disenfranchise as many voters as possible, especially minorities and the poor.

---

This is such bull*****
She couldn't afford to buy a replacement? It literally costs $15 to get a copy from the state of Missouri.
People who don't care enough to get their documents, shouldn't be voting.
It shouldn't be easier to vote than it is to get a pack of cigarettes.

When I was in college I needed to get a passport, but my parents had lost my birth certificate. So I went to the courthouse and paid a few bucks and got a copy. About 8 years ago we moved to a new house. Last year we needed to get a passport for my daughter but we couldn't find her social security card. It was lost during the move. So we spent over 6 months waiting for it to arrive in the mail.
Is it difficult to get replacement documents... not really. Is it an inconvenience... yes.
If someone cannot be bothered to go through a very minor inconvenience, then they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
Everyone should be required to vote in person. It should require SOME level of personal investment.

If youre too lazy to comply.... that's a YOU problem. We don't need to worry about lazy people voting.

---

Don't disagree with you. Just think it is a State issue, not Federal. Even IF Fed can do it, they shouldn't. Leave to States.

---

that's precisely why we are in the situation we are in. Democrat controlled states are cheating.

---

They're not cheating. You just don't like the outcome.

---

Of course they're cheating. by the hundreds of thousands of ballots. documented proof.

You like the cheating because it's justified as a way to beat systemic oppression.

Again: "how can I trust someone who believes in systemic oppression to faithfully administer the parts of the system they control."

---

Can you link the documented proof? So far, not one court case or submitted evidence comes close to those numbers. Thanks.

---

you should follow the news more.

---

How many States have been overturned?

This has been going on for 5 years. Nothing changed from that election, no matter how many of these posts you put up. I know it is a million person conspiracy against Trump. Got it.

I am done trying to have discussions on this. I will go with Bill Barr, the AG at the time and lifelong Conservative.

My position is States need to update their election processes, like Florida did after the "haning chad". Until we have a law saying otherwise, that is the law of the land. Out...

---

Yep.

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

If I were gonna cheat in an election, it wouldn't be one vote at a time. I can't think of a less effective way to cheat. That's similar to robbing the bodega of 500 scratch-offs, then taking them to the lottery to cash in. I remember early on in the Texas lottery, a woman changed the number on the front of her ticket without understanding all of the validation and security measures in the barcoding.

---

When you do it one vote at a time with a few hundred people all filling in fake mail in ballots or going to get illegals to vote or however it is being done it quickly adds up.

It is like the question of $10,000 now or $100 invested for X years. (Or whatever the numbers are) that shows how people jump at the large number failing to realize the invested number generates much more money long term.

---

What saddens me is that these measures are more likely to disenfranchise 1000 voters than stop 10 illegal voters.

---

Exactly as planned.

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

whiterock said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

whiterock said:

---

FLBear5630 said:

---

ShooterTX said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

It's been applied in court but never directly challenged, mainly because actual voting by noncitizens is so vanishingly rare. To enforce a ban preemptively, as this law does, would cause much more widespread problems. Here are a few examples of what happened with a similar law (later held unconstitutional) in Kansas.

Quote:

---

Plaintiff Donna Bucci is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas and over 18 years old. She was born in Baltimore, Maryland. Ms. Bucci has been employed at the Kansas Department of Corrections for the last six years. She is a cook in the prison kitchen on the 3:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. shift. She is provided with limited time off, and must provide two-weeks' notice to use it. In 2013, Ms. Bucci applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the DOV in Sedgwick County, Kansas. The driver's license examiner did not tell Ms. Bucci that she needed to provide proof of citizenship, and did not indicate that she lacked any necessary documentation. When she left the DOV, she believed she had registered to vote. Later, she received a notice in the mail informing her that she needed to show a birth certificate or a passport to become registered to vote. It did not include information about how to pursue the hearing process in K.S.A. 25-2309(m). Ms. Bucci does not possess a copy of her birth certificate or a passport. She cannot afford the cost of a replacement birth certificate from Maryland and she credibly testified that spending money to obtain one would impact whether she could pay rent. Ms. Bucci's voter registration application was canceled for failure to provide DPOC. She could not vote in the 2014 election, but was able to vote in the 2016 election by operation of the preliminary injunction. Ms. Bucci first learned of the alternative hearing procedure when defense counsel informed her of it during her deposition in this case. She testified that it would be hard for her to even participate in a telephonic hearing because she is not allowed to use her cell phone on a work break.

Plaintiff Charles Stricker is a U.S. citizen, a resident of Kansas, and over 18 years old. He was born in Missouri and has lived in Kansas since late 2013, after a period of living in Chicago. Prior to living in Chicago, Mr. Stricker lived in Kansas and was registered to vote in Kansas during that time. He works as a hotel manager in downtown Wichita. Mr. Stricker applied to register to vote while renewing a Kansas driver's license at the Sedgwick County DOV in October 2014. He was told that he had insufficient documentation, and a clerk provided him with a list of documents he needed. Mr. Stricker was attempting to register on the last day of registration before an election, it was so important to him to become registered that he took the day off work to accomplish it. Mr. Stricker rushed home and "grabbed every single document that I could and started shoving them into a file folder to try to get back before the DMV closed," including his birth certificate. He made it back to the DOV in time to complete his application, and recalls telling the clerk that he wanted to register to vote. The DOV clerk did not tell him that he needed any further documentation to register. The clerk printed a small receipt for Mr. Stricker and explained to him that it would be his temporary driver's license until he received his license in the mail. He asked the clerk if there was anything else he needed to do, including whether he needed a voting card. The clerk told him nothing more was necessary. He believed that he was registered to vote.

Mr. Stricker attempted to vote in the 2014 midterm election. He presented his driver's license to the poll worker, but she could not find a record of his registration. He was given a provisional ballot to fill out at an open table with another voter. Mr. Stricker testified that he was confused and embarrassed by the experience. Election day was the first time Mr. Stricker learned that he was not registered to vote. He testified that he learned about the DPOC law sometime later through a press report and wondered if it could explain why he was not allowed to vote. He does not recall receiving any notices from Sedgwick County asking him to provide proof of citizenship.

In 2015, Mr. Stricker's voter registration application was canceled in the ELVIS system. His registration was reinstated by operation of the preliminary injunction on June 22, 2016. At some point in advance of the November 2016 election, Mr. Stricker attempted to check his registration status online and by calling the Sedgwick County election office. The person with whom he spoke told him that it was unclear whether he would be able to vote in the upcoming election because there were legal issues that were still up in the air. When he checked online, there was no record of his registration. On October 26, 2016, the Sedgwick County Election Office sent Mr. Stricker a "Notice of Voter Registration Status." It states:

This notice is to inform you that you have been granted full voter registration status in Kansas and that you are qualified to vote in all official elections in which voters in your precinct are eligible to participate. According to Kansas Statutes Annotated 25, 2309(l), any person registering to vote for the first time in Kansas on or after January 1, 2013, must provide evidence of United States citizenship along with the registration application in order to be granted full registration status. Our records indicate that you submitted a voter registration application during the above-mentioned time period, but you did not provide evidence of your U.S. citizenship. We have since received information from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment's Office of Vital Statistics indicating that you have a Kansas birth certificate on file. Based on that determination, your registration status is deemed complete, and we have granted you full voter registration status.

This notice was signed by Tabitha Lehman, the Sedgwick County Election Commissioner. Ms. Lehman testified that, despite Fed. R. Evid. 615 being invoked at the beginning of trial, she read media reports about the trial, including reports of Mr. Stricker's testimony. She testified that ELVIS records indicate Mr. Stricker is active and "fully registered," and that after reviewing his file prior to her testimony, she believes that the notice he received erroneously referenced his Kansas birth certificate, when in fact his citizenship document was in the DOV's database. She testified that in October 2016, just prior to the election, her office had not updated the generic notice sent to applicants whose DPOC was verified by the county to include the DOV database check, a policy that had changed in May 2016. Therefore, between May 2016 when the DOV policy went into effect, and the 2016 election, Sedgwick County--the second largest county in the State--was apparently sending out erroneous and confusing notices to individuals stating that citizenship was confirmed through the department that maintains Kansas birth certificates, when in fact that was not true.

Since the DPOC law was passed, 6 individuals have applied for a hearing under 25-2309(m) with the State Election Board. One of these individuals, Ms. Jo French, lost her birth certificate after moving several times. She testified about the lengthy and burdensome process of registering to vote without a citizenship document. Ms. French's many encounters with the SOS's office led her to characterize her relationship with former-Deputy SOS Eric Rucker as a friendship. She testified that she hoped her testimony would make Defendant "look good." But her testimony contradicted Defendant's position that the DPOC requirement is not burdensome. As she testified, Ms. French's first of many hurdles was to pay $8 for the State of Arkansas to search for her birth certificate to prove that it did not exist, even though she already knew did not exist because she had requested it twice before. Second, she had to collect documents with the help of several other people--her baptismal record through an old friend in Arkansas and school records from her old school district in Arkansas. Third, she spoke with Mr. Rucker, who in turn reached out to her friends and cousin to vouch for her citizenship. Fourth, Ms. French relied on a friend to drive her 40 miles to the hearing; it was difficult for her to drive because she had recently had knee replacement surgery.

Ms. French's hearing before the State Election Board lasted 30 to 35 minutes and was attended by Defendant, the Lieutenant Governor, and a representative from the Kansas Attorney General's office. Also present were members of the media. The entire process from application to the date of her hearing took more than five months. After the hearing, Ms. French was interviewed, and stated: "I just thought it was strange that I had to go through this procedure to be able to vote. And any other state, you go in, throw down your driver's license and that gives you the right to vote. So this was totally off the wall for me. . . . I don't look funny. I don't talk funny, I've been here all my life."

The hearing records contain information on the other four individuals who availed themselves of the hearing process. One established citizenship through a hearing and was represented by retained counsel. Another individual, Mr. Dale Weber, stated that he did not possess DPOC and that procuring such a document would be cost-prohibitive. The State Election Board ultimately accepted an affidavit that Mr. Weber executed on his own behalf as proof of his citizenship, attesting that he had been born on a military base and was a U.S. citizen. The State Election Board apparently found that Mr. Weber's mere attestation was sufficient to establish his citizenship.

---

Note that, after all the unnecessary hurdles imposed by the state, a simple oath turned out to be sufficient after all. These are the kind of people that "election integrity" laws are actually targeting, not mythical alien voters as Republicans would have you believe. The whole purpose is create as many obstacles and disenfranchise as many voters as possible, especially minorities and the poor.

---

This is such bull*****
She couldn't afford to buy a replacement? It literally costs $15 to get a copy from the state of Missouri.
People who don't care enough to get their documents, shouldn't be voting.
It shouldn't be easier to vote than it is to get a pack of cigarettes.

When I was in college I needed to get a passport, but my parents had lost my birth certificate. So I went to the courthouse and paid a few bucks and got a copy. About 8 years ago we moved to a new house. Last year we needed to get a passport for my daughter but we couldn't find her social security card. It was lost during the move. So we spent over 6 months waiting for it to arrive in the mail.
Is it difficult to get replacement documents... not really. Is it an inconvenience... yes.
If someone cannot be bothered to go through a very minor inconvenience, then they shouldn't be voting in the first place.
Everyone should be required to vote in person. It should require SOME level of personal investment.

If youre too lazy to comply.... that's a YOU problem. We don't need to worry about lazy people voting.

---

Don't disagree with you. Just think it is a State issue, not Federal. Even IF Fed can do it, they shouldn't. Leave to States.

---

that's precisely why we are in the situation we are in. Democrat controlled states are cheating.

---

They're not cheating. You just don't like the outcome.

---

Of course they're cheating. by the hundreds of thousands of ballots. documented proof.

You like the cheating because it's justified as a way to beat systemic oppression.

Again: "how can I trust someone who believes in systemic oppression to faithfully administer the parts of the system they control."

---

Can you link the documented proof? So far, not one court case or submitted evidence comes close to those numbers. Thanks.

---

you should follow the news more.

---

How many States have been overturned?

This has been going on for 5 years. Nothing changed from that election, no matter how many of these posts you put up. I know it is a million person conspiracy against Trump. Got it.

I am done trying to have discussions on this. I will go with Bill Barr, the AG at the time and lifelong Conservative.

My position is States need to update their election processes, like Florida did after the "haning chad". Until we have a law saying otherwise, that is the law of the land. Out...

---

You do realize that no Court could ever overturn a state's election for president?

There is basically an eight week period between the general election and the meeting of the electors. Even if a candidate was capable of getting a court to toss out the results in that short period of time (or delay the results past the meeting of the electors), the election process would still continue in January. And if that state's electors kept someone's total below the needed 270 - in comes House. Were getting a new president on January 20th unless the House remains deadlocked - no matter how many illegal votes were cast.

Mootness prohibits any significant investigation thereafter.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

Mitch Blood Green said:

---

If I were gonna cheat in an election, it wouldn't be one vote at a time. I can't think of a less effective way to cheat. That's similar to robbing the bodega of 500 scratch-offs, then taking them to the lottery to cash in. I remember early on in the Texas lottery, a woman changed the number on the front of her ticket without understanding all of the validation and security measures in the barcoding.

---

When you do it one vote at a time with a few hundred people all filling in fake mail in ballots or going to get illegals to vote or however it is being done it quickly adds up.

It is like the question of $10,000 now or $100 invested for X years. (Or whatever the numbers are) that shows how people jump at the large number failing to realize the invested number generates much more money long term.

---

What you're suggesting is a horrible ROI. Let's assume you're in Waco and I get 100 illegal votes for a Dem candidate. (And I know criminals don't think like this) But what election do you know I can flip with200 illegal votes?

What saddens me is that these measures are more likely to disenfranchise 1000 voters than stop 10 illegal voters.

---

You guys, as usual, just don't get it. It's not only about stopping illegals from voting, it's to ensure overall election integrity so that we the people can trust in the electoral process again. With each person having to provide a unique identifier when voting, a random person won't be able to fill out multiple ballots in the place of the elderly, the infirm, and the homeless who have no idea that they voted. It isn't asking much for all citizens to get an ID. We need to stop catering to the lowest common denominator in our society at the expense of trust in our electoral process and start asking more from our citizens. "Disenfranchisement" not only isn't a road block, it actually doesn't happen when you look at what happened in states like Georgia. Our society can only prosper when we bring UP all citizens to standard, not bring DOWN our standards to the lowest citizens. And a country that doesn't trust its elections is a country that will get torn apart from within.

---

It's not to ensure the election integrity. There is no honest election if Trump loses. That's what you're missing.

We have a sore loser at the top of the ticket who has no integrity, no sense of fairness and no love for country other than its service to him.

Sadly, he's sucked you good people into his vortex. We are being looted in real time, but look over there. They must be cheating.