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.

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.

by Charlie Janssen, State Senator (District 15)

Last week, I talked about the Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act (LB48) legislation that I have proposed. There is another piece of legislation that I’ve proposed that comes up for a hearing soon that I wanted to talk about today.

LB657, which repeals in-state tuition (the so-called “Dream Act”) for illegal immigrants who attend a college or university in our state, is legislation I have proposed before. Unfortunately, it didn’t make it out of the Education Committee last year. There is a public hearing for this bill next Monday, February 7th, at the State Capitol in Lincoln. Opponents of LB48 argue that it goes against federal law (it doesn’t, by the way…it mirrors existing federal law) and that’s why we shouldn’t have it. Yet, the so-called “Dream Act” is okay, even though it’s in direct violation of federal law. (In 1996, federal immigration law was changed to deny access to federal and state financial aid to illegal immigrant students) They can’t have it both ways, by picking and choosing what laws they want enforced.

Another problem the so-called “Dream Act” causes is that it appears to create opportunities for illegal immigrants that simply aren’t there. We subsidize the K-12 education of illegal immigrants. Then we give them in-state tuition rates for college. But after they graduate, employers are not allowed by federal law to hire them. I am a small business owner myself, and I know I wouldn’t risk getting myself or my business in trouble by hiring them. So now, they end up leaving the state or back to their native country and use the knowledge that was acquired in our state at our expense. How does that benefit our state in any way?

by Charlie Janssen, State Senator (District 15)

The 2011 Legislative Session opened a few weeks ago and I couldn’t be prouder to represent the people of the District 15. We have a lot of tough issues that our state needs to tackle this session. I’m looking forward to working with our other lawmakers in an effort to address the problems facing our state, and hope we can reach conclusions that benefit the citizens of Nebraska.

There is one issue I have been working on for years and is currently receiving state and even national attention, and that is the issue of illegal immigration. I introduced LB48, also known as the Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act, in the Legislature on January 6th.

I have communicated with literally thousands of people through e-mails, phone calls, and personal conversations who say they want something done about the illegal immigration issue. They are tired of seeing or hearing about how illegal immigrants are here and our tax dollars are paying for services for them, while taxpaying citizens appear to be getting the short end of the stick.

When I first started working on this legislation, I tried to move the emotion to the side and arm myself with the facts. The Pew Hispanic Research Center published a report recently saying that there were 30,000 illegal immigrants in Nebraska in 2000, and by 2008, that number had risen to over 45,000. That number is likely several thousand higher today. Think about that for a minute: At least 45,000 people living in the state of which we have no medical records, educational records, or criminal records.

Their children go to our public schools and our teachers are told to instruct them without knowing if these children have special needs, or if they are of higher ability. Doctors have no records of the family’s immunizations or medical history, so they are unsure how to treat them. They avoid interactions with police because they are afraid that they’re going to get deported, so they don’t report crimes committed against them. There are many logistical nightmares created because we don’t know anything about these illegal immigrants. (post continued)

Senator Charlie Janssen’s Weekly Column

Week one in the legislature had its normal pomp and circumstance, which is the swearing in of new senators and the seating of the committee chairs and committees. Once again, I am on the Transportation/Telecommunications and Government, Military & Veterans Affairs Committees. I also was elected to chair the Intergovernmental Affairs Committee. I look forward to continuing my work on these committees over the next two years.

As promised, I did put forth LB48, known as the Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act for Nebraska. This has gained much attention statewide and nationally for some of its similarities to the Arizona illegal immigration bill passed last year. (post continued)

Senator Charlie Janssen’s Weekly Column

Almost every state in our country will be looking at immigration reform this year, and twenty-two states will actually be introducing legislation dealing the illegal immigration issue. I am proud to announce that with the Illegal Immigration Enforcement Act (LB48), Nebraska will be included as one of those states.

This bill is meant to protect the citizens of Nebraska in several different ways. First, there’s the issue of our taxes. Nebraska taxpayers are being asked to pay for the education, welfare, and medical expenses of these illegal aliens. Some have said that I’m trying to divert attention away from our state’s budget problems, but I say I’m trying to address some of them. To ask the citizens of the state to pay for people who would choose to willingly break our laws is not right, especially in this tough economy.

Second, there’s our security. (post continued)