Thread: The time has come for national voting standards By Bradley Blakeman, opinion contribu

The time has come for national voting standards

By Bradley Blakeman, opinion contributor - 02/08/17 04:40 PM EST



You would think after the boondoggle of the Florida Recount in the 2000 Presidential Election, there would have been legislation passed that insured uniform standards for federal elections.Today, we are seeing lingering questions of voting integrity and lawsuits not legislation in states that are requiring I.D.’s and other requirements that affect a person’s right to vote in their home state. As a result of these state lawsuits it insures different standards in different states that has a direct consequence to federal elections.

In an effort to create order out of chaos it makes sense that there be uniform standards in federal elections that insure all Americans are treated equally and fairly when exercising their most valued right as a citizen. In federal elections there should not be 50 different standards there should be one. If it is good enough for New York it should be good enough for Florida.
Uniform federal election law should contain the following with regard to voting:

• I.D.: A citizen 18 years of age or older shall produce a valid photo I.D. from an approved federal or state agency to register to vote or to vote. Photo-I.D. has become a necessity post 9/11. You need one to enter a federal building, get on an aircraft, obtain government benefits, etc.;

• Registration: An eligible citizen to vote may register at anytime but within 2 weeks of a federal election by appearing in person at a authorized federal or state office and making application;

• Voting: An eligible voter may appear at their designated polling place from 7am -9pm on the day of a federal election;

• Early Voting: An eligible voter may vote no earlier than 2 weeks before a federal election at their designated early voting location between the hours of 10am-4pm;

• Absentee Voting: An eligible voter upon the showing of good cause shall be entitled to vote by absentee ballot provided they petition for a absentee ballot in person at the designated place no more than 1 month and no less than 2 weeks before a federal election.

• Voting Machines: Voting machines shall be uniform in federal elections.

• A uniform standard shall be established to insure 1 voting machine for X number of registered voters at a polling place.

• Voting protocols: There shall be uniform federal rules and protocols for voter I.D., culling of voter rolls, registration, voting, poll watching, voting machines, eligibility, timing, locations, tallying, reporting, challenges, recounts, certifications, candidate eligibility, forms etc.

By establishing fair, just and equitable federal voting standards it will force the states for follow suit. Although state’s will not be required to follow federal rules in state or local elections it would be costly and inefficient not to.

Federal standards would only be required for any ballot that contains a federal office election.

The federal government has a paramount interest under the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution for insure that all Americans are treated the same when exercising their most important and valued right as a citizen – the right to vote.

As such, the federal government has the affirmative duty to insure that all aspects of voting in federal elections are uniform. It makes no sense that states have the power to make their own rules and requirements with regard to federal elections that could change the outcome, disenfranchise, confuse, prevent or discourage voting.

The goal should be that voting is fair, understandable, convenient and trustworthy. That is not the case today.

It is not fair or equitable for 50 states have 50 different rules for federal elections.

Voting should be not being so easy as to invite fraud or abuse. If you can take the time to wait in a DMV line for license or automobile registration then you can certainly to the same for voting.

Driving is not a right - but voting is.

My vote is for national voting standards that will eliminate state lawsuits, confusion and inequities to registration and voting nationwide.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blo...ting-standards

Driving is a right, too!!

Originally Posted by Judy

Driving is a right, too!!

Driving is not a constitutional right, it's a privilege. While you have a fundamental right to travel on publicly funded roadways, you do not have the right to operate a motor vehicle on those roads.

Driving is not a privilege, it is a right.

Driving is a privilege, not right!

BY INSTRUCTOR @ APPROVEDCOURSE.COM / NOVEMBER 27TH, 2015 / PUBLISHED IN DRIVING

Driving is not a right, it is a privilege. A privilege that can be revoked or suspended if proper care is not taken seriously, and paired along with that privilege is responsibility. The English dictionary defines privilege as a benefit that is granted under certain conditions. When specific conditions are met, then you may be granted the opportunity of operating a motor vehicle by the state. These conditions include the driver’s ability to pass both a written and a driving skills test, as well as keeping a good track record of abiding by the laws of the road and traffic.

In 1958 the U.S. Supreme Court protected a person’s right to travel in Kent vs. Dulles, but not the method of travel. Since the roads are funded by our tax dollars and ‘the right of travel’ is a fundamental right, we can freely use the roads, but that does not mean we have the right to operate a motor vehicle. The privilege to drive a vehicle can be conditionally granted based upon being licensed and following the laws set forth by the government. If the laws are broken or violated, then the governing authorities can restrict or revoke an individual’s privilege. Don’t despair for there are other methods of travel, including, but not limited to, the bus or a taxi cab. These are just a couple of examples of traveling on the roadway systems that doesn’t require an individual to personally operate a motor vehicle.

The government builds and maintains our roadways, bridges, tunnels, and traffic lights with the taxes they collect. These things allow people the convenience of traveling around town, to the workplace, to visit friends, wherever and whenever they would like. Because the government builds and maintains these things for us, the government is the one who gets to regulate the laws concerning who is able to drive on the roads. They require that a person demonstrates working knowledge of operating a motor vehicle safely and obedience to the rules of the road when a person does drive. Is the government perfect? No, but for the safety of society in general, an individual must agree to follow the laws set forth by the governing bodies. The courts have ruled that the safety of the public can overshadow the granting of the ability of an individual to drive. It is really for public safety that rules and laws are in place.

When a person chooses to drive despite many moving violations, or an individual that drives drunk, or someone that drives under another kind of influence, then the authorities can say that that person poses a threat to the safety of the public around them. A motor vehicle can become a weapon in the hands of drivers that are inexperienced or are being reckless by not following the laws that have been set forth. Where there is a motor vehicle injury or death, the effect will ripple outwards affecting their friends and family at the least and an entire community on a broader scale. Please choose to exercise your privilege of driving safely, for everybody’s sake.


https://www.approvedcourse.com/drivi...ege-not-right/

Originally Posted by Judy

Driving is not a privilege, it is a right.

While the 'right to travel' is a fundamental right, the 'privilege to operate a motor vehicle' is conditionally granted based upon being licensed and following certain rules. If the rules are broken or laws violated, the state reserves the right to restrict or revoke a person's privilege."

Driving is a right, MW. Don't let the government or its agents making money teaching driving courses convince you differently.

That doesn't mean the right can't be regulated in the name of public safety, to be sure people know how to drive before they venture onto a freeway to protect themselves and others or to require a state funded vision test every few years to alert someone they may need glasses to continue driving safely.

But this whole notion that driving in a car you own on a public road you paid for is some type of "privilege" is misguided and wrong.

We are a free nation of free people, who with rare exception are supposed to be able to go where we want, when we want and do what we need or want to do when we want or need to do it. This the whole purpose of our beautiful country and the benefits of being a citizen of the United States.

Please don't let a driving school or state government mantra throw you off like that. Driving and travel and many other things are protected by the US Constitution, they are all the inalienable rights of our Declaration of Independence protected as the rights and powers reserved by the people in the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, not once, but twice, in Amendments 9 and 10.

Originally Posted by MontereySherry

While the 'right to travel' is a fundamental right, the 'privilege to operate a motor vehicle' is conditionally granted based upon being licensed and following certain rules. If the rules are broken or laws violated, the state reserves the right to restrict or revoke a person's privilege."

Regulating something for public safety or any other public purpose does not convert a right to a privilege.

Do people not know the definition of the word "privilege"? Here it is:

Definition of privilege

: a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor : prerogative; especially : such a right or immunity attached specifically to a position or an office

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/privilege

Americans, please don't fall for the socialist authoritarian mantra of government and give up your rights because you didn't know what the word "privilege" actually means.

You really think the right to get in your car and drive on roads you paid for is some "immunity", "peculiar benefit", "advantage", "favor" handed to you by the government? Really??!!

Wake Up People.

Originally Posted by Judy

Driving is a right, MW. Don't let the government or its agents making money teaching driving courses convince you differently.

That doesn't mean the right can't be regulated in the name of public safety, to be sure people know how to drive before they venture onto a freeway to protect themselves and others or to require a state funded vision test every few years to alert someone they may need glasses to continue driving safely.

But this whole notion that driving in a car you own on a public road you paid for is some type of "privilege" is misguided and wrong.

We are a free nation of free people, who with rare exception are supposed to be able to go where we want, when we want and do what we need or want to do when we want or need to do it. This the whole purpose of our beautiful country and the benefits of being a citizen of the United States.

Please don't let a driving school or state government mantra throw you off like that. Driving and travel and many other things are protected by the US Constitution, they are all the inalienable rights of our Declaration of Independence protected as the rights and powers reserved by the people in the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights, not once, but twice, in Amendments 9 and 10.

You would be wrong on this. While I understand you share the opinion of some extreme Libertarians on this issue, it is not position supported by law or the U.S. Constitution. You can go where you want and when you want because your right to travel is protected under the law, however, please take a bus, taxi, or have your son drive you unless your state has allowed you the privilege of driving a motor vehicle on public roads.