Connie Benjamin gives a hypothetical scenario in her Omaha World-Herald Public Pulse letter (January 23). She says an 80-year old Nebraskan would be able to fill out a provisional ballot, only to have to return to the Election Commissioner’s office within ten days. That is simply not fact. Current law already establishes that there is no requirement to return to the Election Commissioner and LB 239 as amended does nothing to change that.

I have listened to reasonable objections that several organizations such as the League of Women’s Voters and AARP have raised about the bill, and worked to amend the objected sections out of the bill. Despite this, several organizations are purposely trying to misinform about LB 239, and the facts need to be given so that the public understands the importance of this bill.

These organizations opposed to LB 239 say that any voter ID laws are excessively burdensome. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of an Indiana voter ID law in the 2008 case Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. In writing the majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens–long considered a liberal cornerstone of the court–said “the inconvenience of making a trip to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.” In regards to all the hypothetical scenarios that could be thrown out there, Justice Stevens added, “And even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient” to invalidate the entire law.

As the Supreme Court was deliberating the Crawford case, American Civil Rights Union attorney Peter Ferrara noted, “the slight burden of additional paperwork for a fraction of one percent, to show who they are and thereby prove their eligibility to vote, cannot come close to outweighing the interests of all legitimate legal voters in maintaining their effective vote.”

A 2005 bipartisan Commission on Election Reform, headed by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker III, found no evidence that requiring photo IDs would suppress the minority vote. In addition to this, the panel recommended a national photo ID system and a national campaign to register voters.

Another argument made against voter ID laws is that they are unnecessary due to “relatively low incidence of voter fraud”. In the Crawford case, Justice Stevens said, “That flagrant examples of [voter] fraud…have been documented throughout this nation’s history by respected historians and journalists…demonstrates that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

Justice Stevens received some criticism of his majority opinion, because he included a quote that drew references to the “Boss Tweed” days of Tammany Hall in New York City. Those who say that couldn’t happen in this day and age need to remember that in 2011 alone, there were investigations, indictments or convictions for vote fraud in California, Texas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina and Maryland. We are only three states into the 2012 Presidential Primary and Caucus season, and there have already been charges of voter fraud in all three states. Those who say we’ve never had vote fraud in Nebraska need only go read up on Omaha’s own political boss Tom Dennison to find out Nebraska had large amounts of corruption in the 1900′s.

Justice Stevens also added this in his Crawford opinion: “Public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process has independent significance because it encourages citizen participation in the democratic process.”

Integrity in the election process should be important to every American, and current polls show that it is. A December 2011 poll by Rasmussen says that 70 percent of likely voters believe we should have voter ID laws. Among Hispanics–the fastest-growing voting block nationwide–Resurgent Republic found overwhelming support for voter ID laws in a September 2011 poll. AARP would do well to contact their members before issuing a blanket statement against LB 239, because the overwhelming majority of seniors who have contacted my office are very much in favor of it.

LB 239 attempts to add integrity to our election process. Opponents argue that a very small percentage of Nebraskans might possibly be inconvenienced.

Integrity vs. inconvenience.

What should be our priority when dealing with something as important as our election process?

If you have any questions about LB 239 or would like to show support for the bill, please go to www.stopvotefraud.net.

We all complain about the weatherman from time to time, but has President Obama gotten anything right?

We’re moving into campaign season, and you can bet there will be a variety of topics that will catch our attention in the coming months to Election Day 2012. But here are some questions that should be asked of the candidates, and the answers that I would like to hear them give. They won’t. But I wish they would.

Q: How do you feel about abortion and the death penalty?

A: This is an interesting question. We hear Republicans tell us they are pro-life but want capital punishment. We hear Democrats argue pro-choice but are against capital punishment. If you spend the time to think this through, both sides are wrong.

Hypothetically, what if you were a member of the Dodge County Board of Supervisors and had entered into an agreement to transfer the inmates from your county jail to somplace else? What if you did this because you were certain it was going to save your county hundreds of thousands of dollars annually? My guess is that you would feel pretty good about yourself and flout your accomplishment to your constituents.

Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Section 2.
The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Why an article like this today? I started thinking. Many of our sons and daughters, grandsons and granddaughters, are going to be graduating from high school and college in the coming days. I only wish them the best. But I started thinking about the state of the economy, the country’s financial woes, and began to wonder, “How can they fix this?”

Finally, the answer hit me — Repeal the 26th Amendment. It’s a radical idea. But it might just have merit. The argument for the amendment (40 years ago) was that since 18-year olds could drink and be drafted into military service, they should be allowed to vote. Today, 18-year olds can’t drink and the country doesn’t have a draft so that argument doesn’t work anymore (hence, the repeal of their right to vote).

I was thinking about this the other day. I started driving in 1980 and wanted to find gas prices back then. I remember paying about a buck a gallon when I started driving. The cheapest gas I can ever remember buying was about 88 cents a gallon. Since I don’t have data going back to 1980, I will use the data I have. It is provided by the EIA (Energy Information Agency).

When Clinton took office in Jan 1993, the average price of gas nationwide that week was $1.061. When he started his second term, gas prices had jumped to $1.241, or about 4.25% annually. When he left office, and Bush took over, the gas prices at Bush’s inauguration were $1.474. That means the price increased about 4.69% annually. So far, it could be said that Clinton kept the price of oil pretty consistent.

Bush took over in Jan 2001. When he started his second term, the price of gas had risen to 1.819. The price of gas was rising at just under 6% a year. I know that I haven’t accounted for the period in there where gas hit $4.00 a gallon for a little bit, but from inauguration to inauguration, it stayed consistent. When Bush finished his second term (and Obama took over), the average price for a gallon of gas was $1.847. In other words, during his last four years in office, Bush kept the price of gas from increasing at less than one percent per year!

Obama has taken gas prices from $1.84 on his inauguration day to $3.791 in just over two years. This is an increase of greater than 52% per year. Where is this going to keep going? When is enough going to be enough? And did you notice that the media is predicting gas prices of $5 by Memorial Day? I think that’s just to get us used to the idea, because that seems outrageous to me.

Tell me, can you rate a president based on gas prices? If you can, Obama is receiving a failing grade.

Realities Of The Utah Compact
by Nebraska State Senator Charlie Janssen
(15th Legislative District)

There has been a lot of talk the past couple of months about the “Utah Compact” and how it impacts illegal immigration in our country. Both sides of the political spectrum are taking only pieces of the compact, and using it to push their agendas. The public, as well as quite a few lawmakers around the country, seem to be confused about what the Utah Compact does. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to take a look at what the Utah Compact is.

First of all, let’s mention one thing that the Utah Compact is not, and that is a law. The Utah Compact is a set of ideas that were written down to be considered for future legislation in the area of immigration. Religious officials, business leaders, politicians, and even Hispanic activists from Utah got together last fall and wrote this compact. Even in its very first sentence, it says it is simply “a declaration of five principles to guide Utah’s immigration discussion.”

There were bills that were introduced in Utah during this recent legislative session that were supposedly based on the Utah Compact. But the ideas laid out in the compact do not address any specifics on immigration, only generalities. A lawmaker saying they have based a bill on the Utah Compact is like saying you have based a tax reform bill on the Declaration of Independence. It speaks to the ideals you hope to convey but in the end, does not speak specifically to what you want your bill to accomplish.

Diabetes affects millions of Americans and when left untreated can lead to heart disease and stroke, damage kidneys and nerves, and affect eyesight, circulation and healing capacity. Fremont Area Medical Center’s Diabetes Self-Management Program can help you learn to control the disease and lead a healthier, happier life.

The FAMC program is staffed by a team of healthcare professionals that includes a certified diabetes educator, a registered dietitian, a registered pharmacist, and a physical therapist. They use a combination of individual counseling and group seminars to cover topics that range from nutrition and meal planning to the prevention, detection, and treatment of complications. The program is recognized by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) for meeting the National Standards for Diabetes Self-Management Education Programs.

FAMC’s Diabetes Self-Management Program meets for three sessions – two three-hour group classes and an individual session. Classes are scheduled for April 12 and 13, from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m., with an individual appointment time to be arranged at the patient’s convenience. Classes meet on the third floor of FAMC’s Health Park Plaza. Physician referral is required.

Most insurance companies will cover the program, as will Medicare. To participate, consult your physician for a referral or call (402) 727-3355.

Cases heard Monday in Dodge County District Court included:

* Richard Dobesh, 45, of Fremont was sentenced to 2-4 years in prison for delivery of a controlled substance-marijuana, a Class III felony.

* Daniel Fowler, 21, of Cedar Bluffs admitted to violating his probation for attempted burglary, a Class IV felony. Sentencing was set for April 25.

* Nicholas Harmel, 31, of Fremont pleaded no contest to DUI-third offense-greater than .15 percent blood alcohol content, a Class IIIA felony. Sentencing was set for May 2.

* Jared Stricker, 22, of Fremont pleaded guilty to third-degree assault, a Class I misdemeanor. Sentencing was set for May 2.

Cases heard Monday included:

* William Cusick, 24, of Omaha admitted to violating his probation for attempted first-degree assault, a Class III felony. An updated pre-sentence investigation was ordered and sentencing set for April 18.

* Jeremy Rouseau, 31, of Scribner had his sentencing for possession of a controlled substance-morphine, a Class IV felony, continued until April 4 so he could seek treatment at a residential facility.