This leaves the illegals and dead people the right to vote. The liberals in this country want us to become weak and leaving the election to non-citizens. I felt is was an honor to be able to vote as a citizen of the USA.

The effort by career politician Ruth Johnson is to suppress the voter turn out. It's a cynical effort to win for your party regardless of right and wrong. If the court action cost the state money Ruth Johnson should have to pay for it personally, not out of state funds or campaign funds. It would be totally wrong if a Democratic office holder did this, wrong is wrong.

Voting in an AMERICAN election is a basic right of AMERICAN citizens. If a person is intimidated by checking a box,on a ballot to affirm his/her citizenship, I question his /her ability to vote...

In AMERICA we have laws that serve to protect our freedoms. We do not need intimidation tactics. They did that for decades in the Soviet Union. Perhaps there's an affinity for their tactics.

A legal naturalized citizen of foreign descent is an example. The issue is that when people are asked to answer a question such as this many in a community have had a mistake made and have big issues straightening it out so they'd rather not take the chance. So they don't vote. No one has proven any vote fraud by non citizens so this whole idea is to make it subtly uncomfortable to vote. At some point where there's smoke there's fire--these check boxes or ID issues are only being pushed by Republican controlled legislatures and officials.

Obviously, Neal & others have never been to Federal Offices, & witnessed immigrants being "Sworn In," after months & even years of interviews, filling out forms, & learning basics about our country These immigrants are well aware if they are "citizens" or NOT. And the "bleeding hearts ' should inform themselves about the citizenship process before they utter insults about "Republicans"--& try to cancel out the votes of legal citizens of this nation.

How could one make a mistake on this? Everyone knows whether or not they are a citizen. So many other countries have much more stringent voter requirements. This this hardly difficult or intimidating and it's certainly not the equivalent of "Russian tactics". Whether its effective at turning away ineligible voters is another question and I'd like to hear the case for how this works.

I do understand that the source of the problem is that the SOS was putting customers on the voter rolls when they were issuing licenses, but NOT everyone that got a license was a citizen. A license-holding non-citizen could be under the impression that they could vote as a result of this. The "citizenship check-box" would prevent this before a mistake was made...I suppose.

All this being said, I strongly suspect that the numbers involved here (in terms of how many ineligible voters would be turned away or how many eligible votes might be suppressed) are not large. My recommendation to legislators would be to address these issues shortly after an election and well enough in advance of an election so as not to be subject to wild accusations of voter intimidation. I'm not so naive as to fail to appreciate that such laws might be passed to favor one party over the other, but that risk runs both ways. Requirements so lax, the system lacks credibility and requirements so stringent that it's not worth the effort to vote.

So can the hyperbole, keep it in perspective, lose the fear, love thy neighbor, be considerate toward people (including English-as-a-second-language folks who might find voting, in and of itself intimidating), and use your common sense when making voters eligibility laws, which also does mean don't be afraid to make people take reasonable steps to validate their citizenship status and thus their right to vote. This is all about balancing principles... it always is.

So far it seems the only fraud was by a company retained and then released by the Republican Party (I believe the Florida RP, not national RP). A lot of state officials have been trying to cover the tracks of the various legislation without success. If there is provable fraud let's see it, otherwise the people pushing initiatives that seem to have a disproportionate impact on voters favoring one party need to let go. There's not much point in trying to engage folks such as Ms. Tucci, I saw that with the school bond issue. But, to those without a set agenda, just look at the empiracal evidence that has come out.

empirical, sorry about the mispelling above.