Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Vote ID (update)
Posted by: mcq on Thursday, January 10, 2008

Always nice when your "posterchild" for the law suit presently at the Supreme Court is registered to vote in two states:
On the eve of a hearing before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Indiana Voter ID law has become a story with a twist: One of the individuals used by opponents to the law as an example of how the law hurts older Hoosiers is registered to vote in two states.

Faye Buis-Ewing, 72, who has been telling the media she is a 50-year resident of Indiana, at one point in the past few years also

claimed two states as her primary residence and received a homestead exemption on her property taxes in both states.

Monday night from her Florida home, Ewing said she and her husband Kenneth “winter in Florida and summer in Indiana.” She admitted to registering to vote in both states, but stressed that she's never voted in Florida. She also has a Florida driver’s license, but when she tried to use it as her photo ID in the Indiana elections in November 2006, poll workers wouldn’t accept it.
Doh.
According to Ewing and Ann Nucatola, public information director for the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Ewing surrendered her Indiana driver¹s license in 2000, when she moved to Florida and obtained her Florida license. Nucatola said that a driver must have a Florida address to obtain a Florida driver¹s license.

“And if they own property in two states they have to get a license that says ‘valid in Florida only,’” Nucatola said.

Ewing said Monday that her license is a “regular” one that she uses in both states. She renewed it in 2007 on a Punta Gorda, Fla. address.

At the Charlotte County, Fla. voter registration office, Sandy Wharton, vote qualifying office manager, said Ewing registered to vote in Charlotte County on Sept. 18, 2002, and signed an oath that she was a Florida resident and understood that falsifying the voter application was a third-degree felony punishable by prison and a fine up to $5,000. Wharton said her office checked Ewing’s Florida residency and qualified her on Oct. 2, 2002. On Oct. 4, 2002, they mailed her Florida voter card to her, to the West Lafayette, Ind. address that Ewing gave as a mailing address.

However, Ewing didn’t vote in Florida that year, nor has she ever voted in Charlotte County, Wharton said. But, just a month after receiving her Florida voter card, she did vote in the November 2002 elections in Tippecanoe County, Ind., according to Heather Maddox, co-director of elections and registration in Tippecanoe.
So she voluntarily gave up her IN driver's license, registered to vote in FL and now wants to vote in IN because, I assume, it's more convenient for her.

Life's choices. She's registered to vote in two states, but because she voluntarily gave up her IN driver's license to keep her FL driver's license, I'd have to conclude she's made that choice and any voting she does should be in FL not IN. Thus the IN ID law worked.

I wonder how the court will see it?

UPDATE: Well here's an indication:
The justices’ questioning indicated that a majority did not accept the challengers’ basic argument — that voter-impersonation fraud is not a problem, so requiring voters to produce government-issued photo identification at the polls is an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.

The tenor of the argument suggested, however, that rather than simply decide the case in favor of the state, a majority of five justices would go further and rule that the challenge to the statute, the strictest voter-identification law in the country, was improperly brought in the first place.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Didn’t the article kinda hint that she registered to vote in florida to claim homestead tax exemptions in IN and FL?
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Yup.

Meaning not just voter fraud, but tax evasion.

Toss her ass in jail.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
The Democrats do seem to be having problems getting good "poster children" for their causes lately.

Is this any indication of how they will vet people applying for jobs in a future Clinton/Obama administration???
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Yeah, I loved Kennedy’s question: You want us to invalidate a statute on the ground that it’s a minor inconvenience to a small percentage of voters?
 
Written By: Linus
URL: http://
What also bothers me is the chance that the court will dismiss this. I want it ruled on, darn it...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
After the toxic disputes of FL and OH, not to mention the WA Gov race, this is probably a really vital issue that needs to be addressed.

So if you’re poor, a minority, elderly (or the jackpot poor elderly minority) who somehow either can’t get an ID or went a whole lifetime w/o one.....too bad for you.


 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Required ID? Heck, the technology is getting cheap enough that they should require a fingerprint scan in addition to the photo ID. (At least until the price of a DNA check goes down.)
Declaring a national holiday to ease up the wait might help too, but that’s a little off topic.
 
Written By: Ted
URL: http://
Dems will oppose all types of voter ID except one. If you can bring in a death certificate than you can vote.
For Dems that is legal ID.


 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
People who are against voter idea never bother to talk about the perfectly legal (and easy to get) state IDs. They are the same as a valid drivers license just without the ability to drive added on. Just a birth certificate and a bill (to the address you want the ID made to) is all that is needed.

No test.
Anyone can get.
Perfectly valid form of ID.
All states have them.
 
Written By: SkyWatch
URL: http://
The Democrats do seem to be having problems getting good "poster children" for their causes lately.
I’d argue that the problem is actually the opposite, that the poster children they are getting reflect their true desires just a little too closely for their comfort:

Their poster family for SCHIP reflected their desire for the creation of nationalized healthcare by extending government programs slowly to people who didn’t really need them.

Their poster child in this case reflected their desire to stop anyone from being able to look at the voter registration process too closely.
 
Written By: Terry
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider