Voter ID = Voter Suppression

Voter ID

Right-wing voter suppression is with us. Thirty states now have voter ID laws. There is no reason why anyone should be asked for identification on Election Day. There is no reason to hold up the line. Why not simply sign next to your name on the list of registered voters like we used to? Has there ever been a case in Utah of a voter using an assumed name?

Voter picture ID laws are designed to cause voter disenfranchisement. About 10 percent of eligible voters do not have any photo ID, and these are disproportionately low income and people who don’t own cars. That’s why Utah’s right-wing politicians made it a requirement for registered voters to produce ID before being allowed to cast a ballot.

In Utah, you must present a current valid Utah driver’s license, or current valid identification issued by the state or federal government (or a Utah concealed weapon permit). Some forms of non-photo ID are allowed, but you have to know the rules. If you can’t produce acceptable ID on the spot, you may cast a “provisional ballot” that will not count unless you provide valid voter identification to the election official within five days after the election (it takes three weeks to obtain a Utah ID card).

Those who say it’s no big deal to obtain a driver’s license or an official ID card might not have been to the DMV lately:

As a new resident of Utah, I have been attempting to acquire a Utah driver license. The Utah Driver License Division website lists the identification requirements: (1) legal status (birth certificate); (2) Social Security card; (3) residency verification (two statements proving your Utah address, such as a bank statement, utility or property tax bill); and (4) driving experience (valid driver license from another state).

First attempt: I was rejected because both my bank statement and utility bill had been printed from the Internet (only one Internet document is allowed). I then had my nearby bank print out a statement, and it was rejected because it had not been mailed to me.

Second attempt: I brought my property tax bill instead. It was rejected because it was older than 60 days, even though the website says property tax bills have to be dated “within one year.”

Third attempt: They took all of the above, but rejected me again because I did not have my 40-year-old marriage certificate. Is every married Utah woman required to show her marriage certificate?

Why doesn’t Utah simply accept two government-issued identifications (California driver license and Social Security card) as proof of citizenship and identity?

All this is of course unconstitutional because it’s a poll tax. The fee for a Utah ID Card is $18.00. A driver’s license costs $25.00. Forcing an American citizen to pay in order to vote is a clear violation of the Constitution’s 24th Amendment: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or the other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.”

Of course,Republicans claim that voter ID laws are designed to prevent voter fraud. This claim is easy to debunk. Brad Friedman:

[I]f “voter fraud” was truly a concern of the Republican Party, surely they would require that Iowa caucus goers present a photo ID before casting their vote. But, because such laws have never been about “voter fraud,” once again this year, the Party will not bother to require Iowa Republicans to present any such ID before voting in the all-important caucuses next week.

UPDATE: Election Law Experts Say James O’Keefe Allies Could Face Charges Over Voter Fraud Stunt

More info:
Wikipedia: Voter ID laws (United States)
Tennessee Agency Charges 86-Year Old Veteran An Unconstitutional Poll Tax To Obtain Voter ID
93-Year-Old Tennessee Woman Who Cleaned State Capitol For 30 Years Denied Voter ID
Republicans Require No Photo ID To Vote In Republican Iowa Caucus

Related One Utah Post:
ID-ocracy in Utah?

  1. #1 by Larry Bergan on December 29, 2011 - 10:05 pm


    Thanks for this post!

    I had to go to the DMV a little while ago. Although I’ve never caused an accident, (came fairly close though because I’m human), I was asked to retake the written test, Stand in line for long times, and had to go back three times.

    Heard similar stories in the white population.

    Blaming the DMV would be ludicrous.

    Their resources have been cut too and I wouldn’t doubt they’ve been given impossible instructions that contradict the constitution: we all have.

  2. #2 by Richard Warnick on December 30, 2011 - 10:03 am

    No ID is required to participate in the Iowa GOP caucuses. The caucus-goers are whiter, wealthier and older than average Americans. Anyway their choices are limited to right-wing Republicans!

  3. #3 by cav on December 30, 2011 - 10:20 am

    nly part of a multi-pronged attack on democracy by the .01% and their operatives.

    Offer up ‘evil’ and ‘lesser evil’.

    Make it as hard as possible to actually express an opinion (vote) on such a preposterous choice. Witness the number of potential voters who don’t even waste their time – and still have the moxy to complain about the ‘results’.

    Making sure the machinery used in the process is tainted – rigged to swing outcomes if it’s close enough to do so.

    Have cash reserves great enough to ‘persuade’ the vote tally victor that any promises previously made were just so much talk given the exigencies of the present.

    Be ready to threaten, or actually ‘blot out’ anyone strong enough in their conviction to actually ‘make waves’.

    Consideration of the entertainment value, dumbing-down, or shock and awe ing of the sheeple is paramount.



    Rinse / Repeat.

  4. #4 by Richard Warnick on December 30, 2011 - 2:45 pm

    Utah voter ID requirements were unnecessary, because our state already had really low voter participation. Also, we don’t have that many close elections.

  5. #5 by brewski on December 30, 2011 - 10:25 pm


    There are 2 issues with a person when they vote. 1 is are they who they say they are. 2 is do they “reside” in the jurisdiction where they are attempting to vote.

    I can tell you with a lot of personal information on the second topic that there are a lot of people who live in Salt Lake County, for example, who own second homes or cabins or condos in Summit County, San Juan County, and other popular vacation spots. The law states that only people who “reside” [meaning their primary residence] can vote in a precinct. Nevertheless, many people register to vote where their second home is and some of them have even run for office in those jurisdictions where they do not “reside”. The reason they do this is that they own property in those places and want to influence land and development code in these places and they care more about that than who is the Draper Mayor. These people even go to the lengths to argue that their second home is their primary residence even though their job is in SL County, their kids go to school in SL County and their wife voted in SL County, but somehow this character still said that his mountain condo was his primary residence. So just walking in and signing your name clearly does not cut it.

    So I see no problem at all asking someone to show ID to check out a library book rather than just saying “trust me”. I don’t see how voting is any different. I don’t think that library cards are racist.

    Yes, it is reasonable to ask someone to prove who they are and ALSO where they live. Make the ID free and easy to get. Eliminate your lame-ass poll tax objection.

    In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board that an Indiana law requiring photo ID did not present an undue burden on voters.

    You are on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of the law.

  6. #6 by Richard Warnick on December 30, 2011 - 11:48 pm

    No, you are confusing voter registration with voter ID. Twice, Ann Coulter registered to vote fraudulently. Requiring a picture ID would not have stopped her from voting in Connecticut while living in New York, or later voting in the wrong precinct in Florida. Willard (“Mitt”) Romney pulled a similar stunt, voting in Massachusetts while living in California.

    OTOH with voter suppression laws someone who has recently moved (e.g. a student) may be denied the right to vote even though they are properly registered, because it takes time and money to get a new picture ID or if they are taken by surprise by a voter ID requirement. Remember, in Utah your provisional ballot becomes invalid in just five days if you can’t produce ID according to the new rules.

    Government-issued picture IDs are not “free and easy to get.” That’s the reason why voter suppression laws work. If our current right-wing Supreme Court said this was OK, that’s just further evidence of the partisan nature of the Court. But everyone knows the real purpose of these laws.

  7. #7 by brewski on December 31, 2011 - 10:23 am

    Everyone knows the real purpose of not having these laws is to allow those like the Chicago Machine can get their thugs to vote “early and often”.

    In South Carolina they made the state IDs free, have a toll free 800 number to find out where and how to get one, and offer free door to door car service to take you to get one…and the illegitimate left still opposes it. All of their objections were satisfied and they still want people to vote illegally. True colors revealed by the thugs.

  8. #8 by Richard Warnick on December 31, 2011 - 11:50 am


    “Thugs” = who? Be specific, please.

    South Carolina’s voter suppression law is so bad and discriminatory that the Department of Justice has exercised its power under the Voting Rights Act to stop the law from taking effect.

    Why are Republican caucus-goers in Iowa, who by law must be registered voters, not required to show ID?

  9. #9 by Larry Bergan on December 31, 2011 - 6:58 pm

    Good to see the justice department getting something right for a change.

  10. #10 by brewski on December 31, 2011 - 9:39 pm

    The DOJ is going to get bitch-slapped by the Supreme Court over their action in South Carolina. The DOJ is wrong based on Crawford v. Marion County Election Board that they know they will lose but are making the action just for political appearances’ sake. The DOJ is also going to make Nikki Haley a folk hero.

    Because that is not the law in Iowa.

    Any other dumb questions?

  11. #11 by Richard Warnick on December 31, 2011 - 11:22 pm

    In fact, Iowa does have a voter ID requirement. However, the GOP caucuses are organized and controlled by the party. It’s interesting that Republicans want voter ID for everyone else, but not for themselves!

  12. #12 by brewski on January 1, 2012 - 9:31 am

    Then ask them. I don’t know why you asked me.

  13. #13 by Larry Bergan on January 1, 2012 - 5:28 pm

    Two of the nations best election experts are happy about recent attention to the problems with our elections, but I’ve been excited many times before and then let down by the media.

    We’ll see what happens.

  14. #14 by cav on January 1, 2012 - 6:37 pm

    It’s a veritable Trifecta! Oh, to win for a change.

  15. #15 by brewski on January 1, 2012 - 7:54 pm

    You need to find better “experts” than a far left community college professor and an advisor to Greenpeace. Their piece acknowledges that they will lose in the Supreme Court in the South Carolina case.

    I doubt the UN will find that requiring people to prove they are who they say they are is discriminatory since many other lefty countries have similar systems:

    They enter the isoloir, or isolation booth, where they’re hidden from sight, and insert the appropriate bulletin into the envelope. They walk to the ballot box and show their voter registration card (not compulsory) and are required to prove their identity[6] (in towns of more than 5000 inhabitants, an identification document must be shown). After the officials have acknowledged their right to vote, the ballot box is opened and the voter inserts the envelope.

    So all of this is normal, fair, legal and moral.

    Deal with it.

  16. #16 by Larry Bergan on January 1, 2012 - 9:23 pm


    Thanks for the opportunity to introduce this paragraph from the article:

    Voting rights activists fear a repeat of the well-documented vote switching that occurred in Mahoning County in the 2004 presidential election when county election officials admitted that 31 of their machines switched Kerry votes to Bush.

    That is just one incident – 31 actually.

    Why do machines have rights we don’t? I’ll bet you every one of those 31 machines are still used in elections.

  17. #17 by brewski on January 1, 2012 - 9:34 pm

    That is not an “article”. It is a hit piece which uses inflammatory language and concludes things which are merely feelings. The only statement of fact is when they say

    The US Supreme Court has upheld the requirement of photo ID for voting.

  18. #18 by brewski on January 1, 2012 - 9:44 pm


    I lived in Chicago for 2 years while I was in graduate school.

    I was shocked how different elections were run there compared to California. I had assumed [never really thought about it really] that voting was pretty similar state to state.

    But it isn’t.

    So I go to vote in the 1992 election and there was tons of blatant politicking going on at the polling place for Bill Clinton. You know, this is against the law. The polling place was actually in the garage of a private home in my neighborhood. I had always voted at an elementary school in L.A. so I didn’t know sometimes private homes were used. So I chit-chatted with the owners of the home, who were also the precinct officials, who were also Democratic volunteers and activists, who were also Clinton supporters.

    Gee, big fucking surprise! So what good would my paper ballot do when the homeowner/precinct official/Democratic activist/Chicago thug “loses” my ballot?

    Great fucking system. Ask Nixon.

  19. #19 by Larry Bergan on January 1, 2012 - 10:53 pm


    Nixon died 18 years ago.

    “Some” – or lazy reporters – claim that Kennedy stole an election from him in 1960.

    You need to live in the present – you really need to live in the present. Things change over time. Your enemies can become your friends in the course of a generation.

  20. #20 by brewski on January 1, 2012 - 11:16 pm

    Yes, I am sure the Chicago mob is your friend.

  21. #21 by Larry Bergan on January 1, 2012 - 11:55 pm

    Fine! Go ahead and vote for Romney Reagan.

    We’ll simply outspend the rest of the world; hoping to sell enough weapons to our friends and enemies to compensate.

    Thanks to Obama, Reagan’s incarnation will have the power to disappear whomever he wishes.

    Are you a Mormon, brewski? 🙂

  22. #22 by brewski on January 2, 2012 - 9:59 am

    I am very not Mormon and I am waiting for the Dems or their shadow groups to start running ads saying that when Mitt was a missionary, blacks were not considered equal human beings.

  23. #23 by Richard Warnick on January 2, 2012 - 10:50 am

    I think brewski and I will find agreement that the 2012 presidential election will be down and dirty – also the most expensive ever.

    The Dems’ best ads will feature people who lost their jobs thanks to Willard (“Mitt”) Romney, who is a candidate of, by, and for the 1 Percent. Rachel Maddow pointed out that Ted Kennedy ran TV spots like this in 1994. So much for the “job creator” myth.

  24. #24 by Anonymous on January 2, 2012 - 10:55 am

    You need to find better “experts” than a far left community college professor and an advisor to Greenpeace

    For example, blowhard full of shit lying rightwing conservotards who troll political websites under the name “beer.”. Much more trustworthy.

    Wrong side of reason, wrong side of logic.

  25. #25 by Larry Bergan on January 2, 2012 - 5:56 pm


    It’s amazing that whenever somebody stands up for the right reasons in this country, they manage to get stung by the media and/or internet trolls.

    There is not one dime to be made illuminating the dangers of voting machines or election fraud. There is no doubt that these machines have been tampered with to further republican dominance. The voting machine companies even have right wing ties.

    Can you imagine the noise level from the right, if the machines manufacturers had democratic ties?

  26. #26 by brewski on January 2, 2012 - 7:45 pm

    I am not a source used by anyone else and linked in their posts.

    Also, my name to me does not mean beer.

  27. #27 by Larry Bergan on January 3, 2012 - 8:37 pm

    To quote my own comment from #13:

    Two of the nations best election experts are happy about recent attention to the problems with our elections, but I’ve been excited many times before and then let down by the media.

    I can explain.

    Here is the text I wrote for a video I made and posted to YouTube:

    A video I intended to include in a DVD but realized I didn’t have anywhere near the time to complete. It documents the fact that the print media was forced to reveal dangerous vulnerabilities in the touch screen voting systems used around the country in mid 2006 after two honest election officials had allowed their voting machine systems to be examined by experts. The problem has not been covered at any length to this day. We will be voting on these utterly unverifiable pieces of garbage in 2012. We should be voting on sturdy HAND MARKED, HAND COUNTED ballots.

    The reason it took so long to produce my video is because I had to hand trace all of the corporate logos of the various news organizations. I wanted my video to look professional. I couldn’t afford to hire anybody; that’s for sure!

    These are all actual news stories printed in 2006. Can anybody tell me why we haven’t scraped these pieces of junk?

  28. #28 by brewski on January 3, 2012 - 10:13 pm

    I’ll give you hand marked hand counted ballots (which can still be forged, stuffed, lost, burned, shredded and made up) if you give me free and simple ID’s (just like Canada and every other one of your lefty country requires).

  29. #29 by Larry Bergan on January 3, 2012 - 11:58 pm

    brewski doth protests too much, methinks.

  30. #30 by Frank Stearch on January 4, 2012 - 8:00 am

    Ballots? What are you 6 years old?

    “Those who cast the votes mean nothing, those who count the votes mean everything”. Uncle Joe Stalin.


  31. #31 by Frank Stearch on January 4, 2012 - 8:31 am

    I will use the 6 year old’s analogy to describe our “democratic system”.

    Mom is the dictator of a 6 yr old reality. However, at times and in the interests of developing the child’ newly found individualism, choices are offered the child in order for it to develop a sense of autonomy(albeit utterly false and unavailable). The first choices are often meal that the mother may say, “junior, what would you like for dinner vegetable, broccoli or lima beans” The choice is there of course, but it is a limited narrow choice with Mum making the point upon complaint that this is all she has..point being no matter what the choice, Mum already made it. Welcome to the world of grown ups.

    It is a simple matter to then transfer this reality to the electoral “contest” we are about to undergo. Obama having the look of a failed stunted broccoli, and Romney taking on the aura of an overcooked lima bean. As for Santorum, he’s a weed and was inappropriately never plucked in the garden and somehow wound up in the salad bowl, a bitter leaf to say the least.

    My work is done here, enjoy voting! I prefer mini golf and bowling.

  32. #32 by cav on January 4, 2012 - 8:41 am

    If only there were some sort of chemical that could be sprayed on it to preserve freshness.

    Pepper spray bitches!

  33. #33 by Frank Stearch on January 4, 2012 - 8:46 am

    Pepper Spray..the “Roundup” of the fascist farming cartel!!

    The comparisons and assocoiation with monsanto like kingly corporations is accidental but so timely..firing on all cylinders today, are the Gods trying to wake us up…

  34. #34 by Rico on January 4, 2012 - 12:25 pm

    Speaking of the corrupting influence of corporate money on elections (ok, maybe nobody really made mention of that, but this seemed an approrpriate place to interject it), the Montana Supreme Court just ruled that SCOTUS can go fuck itself over Citizens United. This is gonna get interesting.

  35. #35 by brewski on January 4, 2012 - 1:10 pm

    “Money is the mother’s milk of politics.”

    Jesse Marvin Unruh (September 30, 1922 – August 4, 1987), also known as Big Daddy Unruh, was a prominent U.S. Democratic politician and the California State Treasurer

  36. #36 by Richard Warnick on January 4, 2012 - 1:16 pm

    Who also said:

    “If you can’t eat their food, drink their booze, screw their women and then vote against them, you have no business being up here.”

  37. #37 by brewski on January 4, 2012 - 4:04 pm

    Unruh was Speaker of the California State Assembly from 1961 to 1969 and a delegate to Democratic National Convention from California in 1960 and 1968.

    The high class of the Democratic machine.

  38. #38 by Richard Warnick on January 4, 2012 - 5:06 pm

    If only the Dems had a machine, maybe they could deliver the goods once in a while. The GOP has Faux News and the teavangelicals.

  39. #39 by Larry Bergan on January 4, 2012 - 6:17 pm

    People have to realize herding democrats and making them agree is impossible, but that is our strength. We have no 11th commandment because that would be antithetical to a democratic process.

    Democrats are able to react to worldwide climate change even though they can’t say anything about it on our “public airwaves”, but the republicans just follow the leader; even if it’s GWB.

  40. #40 by brewski on January 4, 2012 - 10:21 pm

    Richard, the Dems do have a machine and they do deliver the goods. The problem is that you don’t know what goods they are delivering. You naively expect them to deliver goods like universal healthcare and all kinds of things that would help you. But you should no reason to expect the Dems to do that because they don’t represent you. They only represent well organized and well funded interest groups and lobbyists and you ain’t it. Now, if you were a cosmetic surgeon and the Dems made sure that your procedures did not have an excise tax impose on them but artificial limbs for veterans do, then you would be happy that the Dems delivered the goods for you.

  41. #41 by brewski on January 4, 2012 - 10:22 pm

    Number of states with voter ID laws: 31
    Chance Holder will prevail in South Carolina: 0%

  42. #42 by Richard Warnick on January 11, 2012 - 3:05 pm

    UPDATE: Election Law Experts Say James O’Keefe Allies Could Face Charges Over Voter Fraud Stunt

    Yep, the far-right AV Club is facing possible felony charges… again!

  43. #43 by Larry Bergan on January 11, 2012 - 4:12 pm


    Could this finally be a salacious criminal prosecution, or just another bout with anticipointment that law abiding Americans have seen over and over and over…

  44. #44 by cav on January 11, 2012 - 4:19 pm

    It’ll never reach Murdock or Rove. Rest assured.

  45. #45 by Larry Bergan on January 11, 2012 - 5:44 pm


    Well the reporting will be scant to none for sure because we all know Americans only care about crimes committed by ordinary people of little means. 🙂

    If anything does break out though the congress should buckle their seat belts tight. This isn’t some silly sex story, baby!

  46. #46 by cav on January 11, 2012 - 7:19 pm

    Hopefully, the not so honorable James E. O’keefe III will be thrown into jail – While possibly not of the level of Rove, he nonetheless deserves to go.

  47. #47 by Larry Bergan on January 11, 2012 - 8:20 pm

    Looks as though James O’Keefe didn’t make enough money from his risky New York Times supported stint against ACORN to move out of his parent’s house.

    Kind of sad, but the law is the law and Americans demand justice for the lowly. However Richards article only talks about legal justice for his allies.


  48. #48 by Larry Bergan on January 13, 2012 - 4:18 pm

    And even more intriguing. From BradBlog:

    …the conservative Republican Mayor of Manchester is now calling for O’Keefe and his pals to be “arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law”…

  49. #49 by Rico on January 30, 2012 - 7:31 am

    There are 2 issues with a person when they vote. 1 is are they who they say they are. 2 is do they “reside” in the jurisdiction where they are attempting to vote.

    Correction. There are 3 issues with a person when they vote:

    3. Can we disenfranchise them by forcing them to use a ballot printed in a language that they cannot understand.

    It’s an anti-fraud measure ya know.

  50. #50 by brewski on January 30, 2012 - 10:17 am

    Why don’t they understand English?

    You May Qualify for Naturalization if:
    You have been a permanent resident for at least 5 years and meet all other eligibility requirements, please visit our General Path to Citizenship page for more information.

    So what the hell have they been doing for 5 years if they have not learned English by then? Do you think that if I moved to Sweden that 5 years later I wouldn’t be able to read and speak Swedish pretty well? Or is your position that it is fine that someone can move here, not make any effort to learn English, and that it is OUR responsibility, not theirs, to make sure that we accommodate their laziness and not for them to learn English?

  51. #51 by Rico on January 30, 2012 - 10:47 am

    But I thought it was all about preventing voter fraud? Or is “voter fraud” just the vote suppression boogey-man de jour? And why do you care anyway? As long as you get your ballot in a form that is understandable to you, what does it matter that someone else gets a ballot that is understandable to them? And why are we looking to socialiast European countries for guidance on the issue? I thought that sort of thing was anathema to conservatives.

    To answer your question, “yes,” I’m perfectly happy to have the ballot printed in multiple languages.

  52. #52 by cav on January 30, 2012 - 10:55 am

    Not to worry, if the republicans can’t beat Obama with the sterling offering they’re putting up (represses regurgitation), the help of the supreme court, and friendly voting machines, there’s always the impeachment card, freshly polished, for use when the numbers appear to tip.

  53. #53 by brewski on January 30, 2012 - 12:30 pm

    I was answering your question. Yes, people vote who are not citizens. Yes, people vote in different jurisdictions from where they live. As a separate point, it would be a good idea for people to spend the 5 years living in the US before they make an application for citizenship learning English. No, that isn’t racist.

    The French require a French language test and I keep hearing on this site that even the right in Europe is to the left of the left in the US. So we should follow the leftist French’s lead.

    And why do you care anyway?

    Because when I walk to the park and play with my 5 year old there are often perhaps a total of 20 kids playing. 19 don’t seem to speak a word of English and then there is my kid. Growing a generation of non-English speakers seems like a bad idea economically and socially. What future jobs will all of these non-English speakers be qualified for? How well is that dual language thing working out in Belgium?

    Then my neighbor (the one with the Subaru with all the Obama stickers) sends her kid to school. Her teacher told her, “I don’t have time to teach your kid this year since I have to spend all my time with the non-English speakers”.

    Then there is the teacher friend of mine who tells me her students tell her “we shouldn’t have to speak English. We’re not American.” So we now have a generation of kids who are actually self identify themselves as not being Americans and that not speaking English is some kind of national pride for their homeland.

    So does it hurt me that we allow generations of citizens to not speak English, not want to speak English, not see themselves as Americans? Yes, it hurts us all.

  54. #54 by Richard Warnick on January 30, 2012 - 1:23 pm


    Belgium actually has three official languages: Flemish, French, and German. Ironically, they use English to bridge the gap, for example in advertising.

    I would argue that Belgium’s lack of political unity is the reason for being multi-lingual, not the other way around. In the USA, there are plenty of incentives to learn English. From the ADL (PDF):

    More than 80% of immigrants say they have tried to learn English. After 15 years in the U.S., for example, 75% of Spanish-speaking immigrants speak English regularly; and 91% of their children and 97% of their grandchildren can speak English well. For many immigrants, however, there are barriers to learning a new language. Many work two or three jobs and don t have enough time, money or child care to allow for classes. English language programs in the U.S. are often underfunded and hard to get into. It is estimated that more than 90,000 immigrants across the nation are on waiting lists to learn English.

    Need I remind you that Republicans are busily putting teachers on the unemployment line?

  55. #55 by brewski on January 30, 2012 - 1:56 pm


    The fact that three generations later (lets call it 75 years in the US for a family) that there are still any (3%!) that don’t speak English is a crime. And your only answer is to blame everyone else except for the people who didn’t learn English?

    As for barriers….too bad. Suck it up. I’m sorry that sometimes you have to work really hard. There is no excuse for anyone three generations in this country to not speak English. Especially since there is this thing which is free to all kids called SCHOOLS. Free schooling for 13 years and they still don’t speak English? And you blame someone else?

    As for your unemployment line BS. You’re wrong. Democrats lay off teachers to protect Cadillac benefits, while Republicans save teachers and rationalize benefits.

    Can you imagine moving to France and then 75 years later, after you have children who attended French schools, and then their children attend French schools, that they wouldn’t speak French?

  56. #56 by Anonymous on June 28, 2012 - 3:31 pm

    If you apply for an ID card in Utah expressly for voting purpose, there is no fee charged.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: