Liberal Forum

The Kansas cautionary tale started in 2013, when the documentary proof of citizenship law, which was passed in 2011, went into force. A federal judge struck down the law as unconstitutional in 2018, by which time the law had blocked the registration of around 31,000 otherwise eligible voters, or about 12 percent of all those who had tried to register for the first time. 

Among them was Steven Fish, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit that successfully challenged the law. Mr. Fish, hoping to vote for the first time, was prevented from registering when he couldn’t furnish the necessary documents. Like about half of American citizens, he didn’t have a passport, and, having been born on a since-shuttered military base, he was unable to track down his birth certificate.


https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/24/us/p ... ansas.html

But it is well worth the effort to ensure "election security"....

These people are so **** g'ddammned stupid....

Moreover, the federal judge found that while the state law was in effect, requiring documentary proof of citizenship had thwarted only 28 noncitizen applicants from registering. And in the roughly 13 years leading up to when the law took effect, just 39 noncitizens had successfully registered to vote. 

Even those few cases were most likely the result of human or administrative errors, not a real intent to commit voter fraud, said Lorraine Minnite, an associate professor at Rutgers University who served as an expert witness in the case that struck down the Kansas law. 

“There was very little evidence of noncitizen voting in Kansas, either before 2011 or after,” Ms. Minnite said.


Ibid.


 

A report published late last year by researchers from three different organizations examined the financial impacts of legislation requiring documentary proof of citizenship in Arizona and Kansas. Those organizations were the Campaign Legal Center; Demos, a left-leaning think tank; and State Voices, a network of state-based progressive advocacy groups. 

The study found that, in addition to blocking eligible voters from the rolls, the SAFE Act had most likely cost Kansas’ government as much as $353,000. That figure didn’t account for expenses incurred by county-level elections officials, who had to to bulk up staffing to institute the new requirements.


Ibid.

"Small price to pay to reduce participation."

Blackvegetable » 24 Mar 2026, 6:54 am » wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2026, 6:54 am

The Kansas cautionary tale started in 2013, when the documentary proof of citizenship law, which was passed in 2011, went into force. A federal judge struck down the law as unconstitutional in 2018, by which time the law had blocked the registration of around 31,000 otherwise eligible voters, or about 12 percent of all those who had tried to register for the first time. 

Among them was Steven Fish, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit that successfully challenged the law. Mr. Fish, hoping to vote for the first time, was prevented from registering when he couldn’t furnish the necessary documents. Like about half of American citizens, he didn’t have a passport, and, having been born on a since-shuttered military base, he was unable to track down his birth certificate.


https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/24/us/p ... ansas.html

But it is well worth the effort to ensure "election security"....

These people are so **** g'ddammned stupid....

 

The voter turnout data in Kansas in the 2014 congressional midterm and 2012 presidential elections once again show that the claims by opponents of voter identification are wrong. There is no evidence that the turnout of Kansas voters was suppressed or affected in a negative way by the state’s voter ID requirement.[1] In fact, it may have had a very slight positive effect.

https://www.heritage.org/report/revisit ... ansas-2014

Huey » 24 Mar 2026, 7:32 am » wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2026, 7:32 am

The voter turnout data in Kansas in the 2014 congressional midterm and 2012 presidential elections once again show that the claims by opponents of voter identification are wrong. There is no evidence that the turnout of Kansas voters was suppressed or affected in a negative way by the state’s voter ID requirement.[1] In fact, it may have had a very slight positive effect.

https://www.heritage.org/report/revisit ... ansas-2014

Hans von Spakovsky

He's the Dr. John Lott of the voter fraud hoax...

Blackvegetable » 24 Mar 2026, 6:54 am » wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2026, 6:54 am

The Kansas cautionary tale started in 2013, when the documentary proof of citizenship law, which was passed in 2011, went into force. A federal judge struck down the law as unconstitutional in 2018, by which time the law had blocked the registration of around 31,000 otherwise eligible voters, or about 12 percent of all those who had tried to register for the first time. 

Among them was Steven Fish, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit that successfully challenged the law. Mr. Fish, hoping to vote for the first time, was prevented from registering when he couldn’t furnish the necessary documents. Like about half of American citizens, he didn’t have a passport, and, having been born on a since-shuttered military base, he was unable to track down his birth certificate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/24/us/p ... ansas.html

But it is well worth the effort to ensure "election security"....

These people are so **** g'ddammned stupid....

NY Times?

Didn't they get a fake pulitzer for their fake coverage of the fake russiagate story that was built entirely on clinton-sponsored oppo research?

I don't trust such a discredited rag with something as important as American elections. 

If there were not an excellent reason for it, I am confident that Kansas would not have done it.

They're a pretty sophisticated bunch. They have a cut of beef named after them, FFS - and an entire song written for their capitol city. 

Blackvegetable » 24 Mar 2026, 7:44 am » wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2026, 7:44 am

He's the Dr. John Lott of the voter fraud hoax...

Wayne Newton is the Mr. Las Vegas of Las Vegas.

Blackvegetable » 24 Mar 2026, 7:22 am » wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2026, 7:22 am

Moreover, the federal judge found that while the state law was in effect, requiring documentary proof of citizenship had thwarted only 28 noncitizen applicants from registering. And in the roughly 13 years leading up to when the law took effect, just 39 noncitizens had successfully registered to vote.

That they know about...

Could be many millions that they DON'T know about.

Blackvegetable » 24 Mar 2026, 7:22 am » wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2026, 7:22 am

Even those few cases were most likely the result of human or administrative errors, not a real intent to commit voter fraud, said Lorraine Minnite, an associate professor at Rutgers University who served as an expert witness in the case that struck down the Kansas law.

"ASSOCIATE" professor? I want a real professor.

And I'm sure I can find some dirt on Rutgers. You need to tell THIS story walkin.
 

Blackvegetable » 24 Mar 2026, 7:44 am » wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2026, 7:44 am

He's the Dr. John Lott of the voter fraud hoax...

 

Then it should be easy to refute
 

Huey » 24 Mar 2026, 7:57 am » wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2026, 7:57 am

Blackvegetable » 24 Mar 2026, 7:44 am » wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2026, 7:44 am

He's the Dr. John Lott of the voter fraud hoax...

Then it should be easy to refute

Why would he try to refute a guy he just heaped praise on?

What am I missing ? I came in late.

Huey » 24 Mar 2026, 7:32 am » wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2026, 7:32 am

The voter turnout data in Kansas in the 2014 congressional midterm and 2012 presidential elections once again show that the claims by opponents of voter identification are wrong. There is no evidence that the turnout of Kansas voters was suppressed or affected in a negative way by the state’s voter ID requirement.[1] In fact, it may have had a very slight positive effect.

https://www.heritage.org/report/revisit ... ansas-2014

Contrary to what was established, in a court of law..

1 in 8 first time registrants.

on Hans..


He was nominated to the FEC by President George W. Bush on December 15, 2005, and appointed by recess appointment on January 4, 2006.[6] However, von Spakovsky's nomination was opposed by Senate Democrats, who argued that his oversight of voter laws was unacceptably partisan.[7][8] Opposition to his nomination was bolstered by objections from career Justice Department staff, who accused von Spakovsky of politicizing his nominally non-partisan office to an unprecedented degree.[9] While von Spakovsky and the Bush Administration denied the accusations of partisanship, the nomination was withdrawn on May 15, 2008.[10] 

Von Spakovsky subsequently joined the staff of The Heritage Foundation, a politically conservative think tank. On June 29, 2017, President Donald Trump named him as a member of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, which disbanded after six months amid controversy.[11][12] Spakovsky wrote the Project 2025 section on federal election oversight.[12]



This guy is wholly invested in the "voter fraud" hoax.

Blackvegetable » 24 Mar 2026, 8:43 am » wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2026, 8:43 am

Contrary to what was established, in a court of law..

1 in 8 first time registrants.

on Hans..

He was nominated to the FEC by President George W. Bush on December 15, 2005, and appointed by recess appointment on January 4, 2006.[6] However, von Spakovsky's nomination was opposed by Senate Democrats, who argued that his oversight of voter laws was unacceptably partisan.[7][8] Opposition to his nomination was bolstered by objections from career Justice Department staff, who accused von Spakovsky of politicizing his nominally non-partisan office to an unprecedented degree.[9] While von Spakovsky and the Bush Administration denied the accusations of partisanship, the nomination was withdrawn on May 15, 2008.[10] 

Von Spakovsky subsequently joined the staff of The Heritage Foundation, a politically conservative think tank. On June 29, 2017, President Donald Trump named him as a member of the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, which disbanded after six months amid controversy.[11][12] Spakovsky wrote the Project 2025 section on federal election oversight.[12]

This guy is wholly invested in the "voter fraud" hoax.

But you posted nothing that refutes this:

There is no evidence that the turnout of Kansas voters was suppressed or affected in a negative way by the state’s voter ID requirement.
 

Huey » 24 Mar 2026, 9:26 am » wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2026, 9:26 am

But you posted nothing that refutes this:

There is no evidence that the turnout of Kansas voters was suppressed or affected in a negative way by the state’s voter ID requirement.

I did...

Courts are "finders of fact"..Facts will always trump spurious correlation.
 

Blackvegetable » Today, 6:54 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 6:54 am

The Kansas cautionary tale started in 2013, when the documentary proof of citizenship law, which was passed in 2011, went into force. A federal judge struck down the law as unconstitutional in 2018, by which time the law had blocked the registration of around 31,000 otherwise eligible voters, or about 12 percent of all those who had tried to register for the first time. 

Among them was Steven Fish, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit that successfully challenged the law. Mr. Fish, hoping to vote for the first time, was prevented from registering when he couldn’t furnish the necessary documents. Like about half of American citizens, he didn’t have a passport, and, having been born on a since-shuttered military base, he was unable to track down his birth certificate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/24/us/p ... ansas.html

But it is well worth the effort to ensure "election security"....

These people are so **** g'ddammned stupid....

We first applied A.I. in Kansas and Colorado with remarkable results.

 In Kansas, we showed in less than 30 seconds, there are 40,000 plus voters, on the current voter roll - who are registered, but cannot receive a mail-in ballot because their address has problems. It could be a bad zip code, no zip code at all or a dozen other reasons.

 We showed this to the President of the Kansas State Senate who told us our findings “….were not well received.”

https://omega4america.substack.com/p/ho ... dium=email

#stopbidding
 

Cannonpointer » Today, 7:48 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 7:48 am

That they know about...

Could be many millions that they DON'T know about.

"ASSOCIATE" professor? I want a real professor.

And I'm sure I can find some dirt on Rutgers. You need to tell THIS story walkin.

https://omega4america.substack.com/p/ho ... dium=email
 

ROG62 » 24 Mar 2026, 9:50 am » wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2026, 9:50 am

We first applied A.I. in Kansas and Colorado with remarkable results.

 In Kansas, we showed in less than 30 seconds, there are 40,000 plus voters, on the current voter roll - who are registered, but cannot receive a mail-in ballot because their address has problems. It could be a bad zip code, no zip code at all or a dozen other reasons.

 We showed this to the President of the Kansas State Senate who told us our findings “….were not well received.”

https://omega4america.substack.com/p/ho ... dium=email

#stopbidding

I don't see a point in here...


 

Blackvegetable » 19 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

19 minutes ago

I did...

Courts are "finders of fact"..Facts will always trump spurious correlation.

Like Trump NOT being convicted of rape?

ROG62 » 24 Mar 2026, 9:54 am » wrote: ↑

24 Mar 2026, 9:54 am

Like Trump NOT being convicted of rape?

No one said he was convicted of rape.

This is how irredeemably stupid you are. 

Blackvegetable » Today, 10:11 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 10:11 am

No one said he was convicted of rape.

Oh, so now you’re trying to reframe…got it…

problem being, brown…you’re dead in the water…

“Which the jury determined to be an act of rape.” 

                                          brown ~ 13 Mar 2026, 7:18

they didn’t…

YOU LIED…

so, you LOST, again 

This is how irredeemably stupid you are. 

#reframe
 
 
 

Blackvegetable » Today, 9:52 am » wrote: ↑

Today, 9:52 am

I don't see a point in here...

*shocked*