With No Photo IDs, Nuns Denied Ballots In Indiana Primary

[DeSwiss]

Source: McClatchy

With no photo IDs, nuns denied ballots in Indiana primary

By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers
Posted on Tuesday, May 6, 2008

WASHINGTON — At least 10 retired nuns in South Bend, Ind., were barred from casting regular ballots in Tuesday's Indiana Democratic primary election because they lacked photo IDs required under a state law upheld last week by the U.S. Supreme Court.

John Borkowski, a South Bend lawyer volunteering as an election watchdog for the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said several of the retired nuns had been voting all of their lives but were told they lacked the required photo IDs.

Indiana's toughest-in-the-nation law, which the high court upheld by a 6-3 vote, requires every voter to produce a state-issued photo ID card.

Borkowski said that two of the nuns with whom he spoke ``were very frustrated'' and so upset that they refused to exercise their rights to cast provisional ballots. He said one of the nuns told him that many other elderly nuns living on four floors of the Congregation of the Sisters of the Holy Cross decided not to vote upon learning that their sisters had been turned away at the poll in their building.

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/36034.html

---

- So. If they had been allowed to vote, which way do you think they would've gone? Hillary or Barak?

Yeah, I know. I think they'd have voted for Hillary. If for no other reason than to piss-off the Pope!
========================================================================
DeSwiss


http://atheisttoolbox.com/">The Atheist Toolbox

[hlthe2b]

1. well, I know a few Catholic Supreme Court Justices that are surely

goin to HELL! :evilgrin:

[DeSwiss]

11. Ohhhhhh, I forgot all about that!!!!

And I'd particularly love to see Scalia being pulled by his ears and smacked with a Nun-ruler! In fact, I'd pay to see that! Oh yes!!!

[timtom]

46. Being that he's a Republican

HE'd probably pay to see that, as well.

"Sister. I've been very, very naughty...."

[Clear Blue Sky]

2. This is absolute nunsense...

;-)

[DeSwiss]

12. Yuck, yuck, yuck....

[santamargarita]

3. I always knew Republicans were going to Hell

K&R

[DeSwiss]

14. Hell might be an improvement....

...compared to an eternity in heaven with pissed-off nuns!!!

[customerserviceguy]

31. Heaven

if it exists, has no pissed-off nuns! (Recovered Catholic!)

[MasonJar]

4. This is exactly what the Pugs want. Let's not let them get away with it.

[DeSwiss]

15. It would appear that they already have...

...for the time being, anyway.

[Hissyspit]

5. I'm sure they forgot to pay the poll tax, too.

[DeSwiss]

16. Aren't nuns...

...poll tax-exempt???

:yoiks:

[indypaul]

6. This law, without question,

is an embarrassment to all citizens of the State of Indiana;
irrespective of the Supreme Court decision upholding its
constitutionality. I am calling upon my representative
in the General Assembly and the Governor for a special
session and its immediate repeal.

[xxqqqzme]

7. Exactly - ELECTION fraud we all know takes place

but I believe I recently heard that a case of VOTER fraud has never been prosecuted.

[SharonAnn]

38. Not in Indiana, maybe. But the head of the Republican Women's Club in TN

was recently convicted for Voter Fraud. She voted twice, once under the name of another person.

Can you believe the gall?

[cstanleytech]

9. Ok, I am not familar with that states law so

what exactly is wrong with it?
Are they not providing a way for people to get a free photo ID?
If the answer is no they are not then ok it needs a rewrite however if the state has it setup so people can apply for a free photo ID why is requiring ID to prove citizenship in order to vote wrong?

[kas125]

13. The answer is, no, they do not provide a free ID card.

I got one for my sixteen year old son before he got his learner's permit and I can't remember for sure, but I think it was about $16. Even if they did provide them at no cost, many people like those nuns couldn't get one. One has to have a slew of documents proving who you are and where you live in order to get the ID and many people just don't have the documents or even know where to get them.

[slackmaster]

22. Oh yes they do

http://www.in.gov/bmv/3378.htm

Scroll down to "Identification Card For Voting Purposes - 6 Year". It's free.

[kas125]

24. Thanks -

I know people who went to the BMV and got a regular state ID that they paid for just so they could vote and nobody there told them that there was another option. I'm glad to know about this in case anyone else I run into needs it.

[SharonAnn]

39. And you have to have transportation to go get the card, and help if you're disabled.

[cstanleytech]

40. Oh I admit thats a problem

and one that needs to be solved maybe by say making it so people can either get IDs made when they register to vote or maybe even make it so people can get an ID made at a police station but to require little to no ID to vote by relying on signatures alone is a bad idea in my opinion.

[aggiesal]

33. Why is this wrong? ...

When you register, you have to sign the registration form.

By requiring voters to produce ID cards, disenfranchises the poor, and the elderly,
because neither have a way to go to the DMV to get a state issued ID card.

If you don't have a state issued ID card, you're entitled to vote on a
provisional ballot. But then you're given 2 days to produce a valid State issued ID
card at the Registrar of Voters for your provisional ballot to count.
When I lived in Indiana, my county seat was in Crown Point, which was over 20 miles
from where I lived and voted. If I'm poor or elderly and I don't have a car, how do
I travel those 20 miles for my vote to count.

This was pure BS.

When I vote, I have to sign the register. Verify my signature on the register
against my signature on my registration form on file to determine voter fraud.

[cstanleytech]

36. How does requiring a "free" photo ID

disenfranchise the poor and elderly?
I could see if it was required that they pay for the ID as thats just a poll tax with another name but a free ID? I dont buy the argument offhand but feel free to explain it while you do that do you happen to know offhand how many polling stations have handwriting experts on hand to verify that signature thing?

[aggiesal]

41. Because, ...

They don't have the means to get to the location where they can get the free photo ID.

Besides, why should I have to show a photo ID when I vote in person,
but I'm not required to show a photo ID if I vote by mail (i.e. absentee voting).

The ROV uses signature to prove the absentee voting, they can use my signature from
the voting register to prove my in precinct vote.

The signature is not verified at the precinct. It's verified at the ROV.

Currently the ROV scans the mailed ballot into a computer and brings up the
registration signature. The ROV workers see them together and determine if there
is a match. If not, then they contact the voter to come down to the ROV and produce
another signature.

The registers from the polling precinct are taken back to the ROV, and again the
signature on the register are scanned and verified with the registration signature.

[cstanleytech]

50. For the transportation excuse see my

reply above to SharonAnn as that could help resolve some of the problems.
You have a point about the mail in ballots I admit and its never made much sense to me unless are you required to have ID when you get it intially?
Anyway I still dont see whats wrong with requiring photo ID to vote if its a free ID and its one of the very few things I agree with republicans.....actually I think it might be the only thing I agree on though I am sure when my heads not pounding with this migraine I have atm I will think of something else given enough time.

[aggiesal]

54. I understand what you're saying, but...

Just showing up to get an ID is not that simple.
The states require that you supply some utility bill or property tax to prove you live at the address that you claim.

When you're poor or elderly, you don't have access to these documents.
Rent receipts or assisted living receipts are not considered valid proof.
In fact, elderly who are in assisted living, don't officially live at the address of
the assisted living location.

The Supreme Court in the past, have already ruled that requiring ID's to vote, is
unconstitutional. It took this NeoCon Supreme Court to finally get this approved.
Now all states legislatures that have a Republican majority are going to push these
regressive laws through they system.

They can't prove voter fraud in the courts, but they're willing to commit election fraud,
and you're will to help in their endeavor?

(Election fraud, by limiting the number of voters...)

[Danmel]

59. And they need underlying ID

Like a birth certificate.

So if they don;t have one they have to pay to obtain one, which can take a few weeks and then produce it- it is undoubtedly a hardship and undoubtedly intended to suppress the votes of the rural poor, blacks and the elderly and disabled. Plus they have to travel ,in many cases long distances.

[amandabeech]

49. I grew up in a poor, rural area.

There is van service for the elderly and disabled.

Poor people drive old cars or rely on friends and relatives to get around.

I think that getting everyone a free photo ID is doable, but will take some time and some organization that wasn't possible in this election.

I think that there might also be room for some sort of mobile ID capacity for people who really can't leave their homes. You know, a voter registrar could take a picture of the person at their home, have a form witnessed and signed there, and then go back, make the ID and then mail or deliver it to the voter. After all, passports applications are done by mail. All you need is a photo and a little creativity.

I'm reserving judgment on this issue to see how election officials and DMVs can work this out.

[aggiesal]

53. They won't, ...

In fact some of the poor and elderly also lack the documentation to prove that they live at a specific address.

States are requiring that citizens seeking to get just an ID, produce some utility bill, or property tax statement with rent receipts, ...

When you're poor you don't have this type of documentation.

And at times when you're elderly, you live with family, who pay for these bills, so the elderly person doesn't have the documentation to prove that they live at the address.

Believe me when I say this, these laws are strictly designed to keep democratic voter rolls to a minimum.

Ask the 10 nuns why they couldn't get a state issued ID card.
Because they didn't have valid documentation.

[amandabeech]

55. Like I said, I'm going to reserve judgment on this until the kinks get worked out.

Considering the level of mental activity that passes for thought in many state legislatures, I am reluctant to attribute bad motives to people when politically motivated haste and an inability to think things through explain the actions just as well.

[cstanleytech]

61. I live barely above povertly level and they do "not" require

proof of renting where I live, all they ask for is a last months bill with your name and a birth certficate which is more than doable by most people so that just does not wash with me as a sound reason to oppose IDs, transportation issue I might buy but there are solutions to that as well.
Besides people are given more than enough time to get the ID to vote, if they are to lazy to get a free ID what makes you think they will even take the time to vote?

[aggiesal]

62. In Arizona, ...

Arizona voters passed Proposition 200, which implemented harsh voter identification requirements.
The law requires voters who cast a ballot at a polling place on Election Day to present photo identification deemed “acceptable” by Arizona’s Secretary of State, such as a driver’s license, or two alternate forms of ID that include the name or address of the voter such as a utility bill or a bank statement.

Such requirements can disenfranchise voters without photo ID by making it hard for them to cast ballots if they live at a residence where someone else, such as a spouse, parent, or roommate pays the bills.

[DeSwiss]

17. Good for you!!!

I agree. And good luck!!!

[dipsydoodle]

8. Usual excuse I suppose

they all look the same.

[DeSwiss]

18. Ouch!

[dipsydoodle]

21. I know -

it's a digusting expression but on this occasion it just seeemd to fit the absurdity of the situation.

[rgbecker]

10. If they count Michigan or Florida, they should count the NUNS!

[DeSwiss]

19. These are Nuns...

...not Nones. Huh???

- Just forget I said anything....

[bronxiteforever]

20. Excommunicate those Judges who would deny Catholics the Right to Vote!

Supreme Court Upholds Voter Identification Law in Indiana

By DAVID STOUT
Published: April 29, 2008-NYT
Justice John Paul Stevens, who announced the judgment of the court and wrote an opinion in which Chief John G. Roberts Jr. and Anthony M. Kennedy joined, alluded to — and brushed aside — complaints that the law benefits Republicans and works against Democrats, whose ranks are more likely to include poor people or those in minority groups.

Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. concurred in the judgment of the court, but went further in rejecting the plaintiffs’ challenge. In an opinion by Justice Scalia, the three justices said, “The law should be upheld because its overall burden is minimal and justified.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/washington/28cnd-scotus.html?_r=1&ex=1367121600&en=c32c1b829a57e00e&ei=5088&partner=rss&oref=slogin

CJ John Roberts-Roman Catholic

J Scalia-Roman Catholic

J Thomas-Roman Catholic

J Alito-Roman Catholic

J Kennedy-Roman Catholic

[DeSwiss]

26. I just know that some poor innocent kid's...

...gonna end up paying for this with skin from his knuckles.

- At least he hopes its just his knuckels...

[whistler162]

42. I wonder if the nuns....

did this on purpose. A little social activism to get the blood flowing.

[lark]

67. Don't worry

If there is indeed a hell, and I'm not at all convinced of that, those clowns would never make it!

[Harry Monroe]

23. Upon hearing that they could not vote, one of the nuns whipped out a ruler ...

...and smacked the poll worker with it!! Another pulled out an ID with a penguin's picture on it and then was allowed to vote!!

[DeSwiss]

27. ....

[FarCenter]

25. They should have voted by mail

[DeSwiss]

28. Yeah, but....

...voting's probably one of the few times the girls can get out.

- Priests can be so needy...

[AnnieBW]

29. The Repukes thought they'd disenfranchise the blacks

and they wound up disenfranchising the black-and-whites!

[raystorm7]

30. Look at the bright side...Better now than in the general. Now we can get these folks some id, heh?

[happyslug]

32. Duplicate topic:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=108&topic_id=130501&mesg_id=130515

[DeSwiss]

35. It happens...

...even when you search and Google -- which I do, and did in this case.

[DeSwiss]

34. OH NO!!! Now this I didn't know....

The earlier article that was posted by McClatchy didn't say that the person turning the nuns away, was another nun!!!

Indiana nuns lacking ID denied at poll by fellow sister

By DEBORAH HASTINGS, AP National Writer
15 minutes ago

About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow sister because they didn't have state or federal identification bearing a photograph.

Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow members of Saint Mary's Convent in South Bend, across the street from the University of Notre Dame, because they had been told earlier that they would need such an ID to vote.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/indiana_primary_photo_id">MORE

- Geeze, I hope this doesn't cause a fight or something like that at the convent later tonight....
========================================================================
DeSwiss


http://atheisttoolbox.com/">The Atheist Toolbox

[happyslug]

37. I still think it was set up by the Nuns themselves.

It was a way to show they opposition to the Supreme Court Decision, and maybe pressure the State legislature to address WHY they could NOT vote (and by extension address the problems of other people without IDs).

Now, I can NOT find it when I re-read both Articles, but I believe I had read a statement that they rejected a Military ID for it had no expiration date on it (The person then produced his driver's license which had an expiration date on it). Under the US Military ID System, Commissioned Officer's IDs do NOT have an expiration date on them. Thus Officer's IDs are effective until resignation. Enlisted IDs expire with your enlistment period, thus always has an expiration date. In this case some officer tried to use his military ID, effective for Geneva Convention purposes, and it was refused. I question that refusal, given that it is a valid US Military ID.

[rpannier]

44. Some of which were 80 and 90 plus years old

One was 98.

[rpannier]

43. What made this even more ridiculous is

the person who turned them away was a nun from the convent.

Even though she knew them all personally, that isn't good enough.

It's just damned idiotic

[pipoman]

45. Requiring people to produce ID

at the polls is pure common sense, especially if the ID is free. How can anyone do anything today without some form of government ID? The excuses that the poor or disabled can't get to the ID provider is bogus. Every .gov building is subject to ADA requirements for accessibility and even the smallest communities offer free transportation for poor and disabled.

[happyslug]

47. You will be surprise at the number of my Clients who have NO ID

In most states if you want an ID you must pay for it, generally to the State Highway Department in the form of a non-license license. To get that you must obtain proof of who you are, which costs money. I recently had a client I had known for years, that needed an ID to cash a Government check she received. She had no ID, and could not cash the check made out to her by the State. I ended up doing an affidavit for her saying she was who she said she was, and the bank accepted it, but my point is she still has no ID, no Birth Certificate or any other form of ID (including utility bill). She has no way to get to the Driver's License center to get an photo ID, and no way to get the documentation she needs. How does she get an ID? How does she votes?

As to free ID, Indiana claims it is Free, but not the documentation needed to get the ID. Furthermore since the Nuns are living in a Convent, they have no utility bills in their name (Used as an ID for some purposes). The Church's ID is NOT acceptable. How do they get acceptable IDs? The answer is they don't. And that was the plan of the GOP when this bill was passed, people who can get a Driver's License (or a Non-Driving License) tend to have more income (and stable homes) then low income people (Who often move more than once a year do to lack of funds to stay in one place for any length of time).

Yes, if you have a stable home address, access to your birth Certificate and other IDs you can get a Free Indiana ID, but if you lack any of those, it becomes almost impossible. Unless you are willing to increase taxes so such people can get free IDs every time they move, it will continue to be expensive (In terms of such people, Welfare Payments in my home State of Pennsylvania is only $174 a month).

[pipoman]

48. I just don't buy it

Legal aliens who are eligible to vote have documentation. Natives can fairly easily get birth certs and/or social security cards, those who can't have to be exceedingly rare. As for transportation I work in a town of 1500 and they have public transportation bigger cities have more. I believe it is more a lack of will.

With the voter fraud issues frequently discussed here on DU, I believe it is a no-brainer to require ID to vote.

[happyslug]

52. Have you taken the mass transit system in your town?

Most people who mention mass transit never have and do not plan to. Furthermore most do NOT go by Driver's License locations, given the lack of demand on a daily basis for such service (Driver's license bureau tend to be out in the suburbs with limited or no bus service).

Furthermore access to bus service information is quite limited (It has improved with the net, but most of the people we are discussing have no access to the net). Thus you have to spend a day trying to find out HOW to get to the Driver's license location on a day and time it is open and bus service is somewhat around.

Do not confuse mass transit in major cities with mass transit in smaller cities. I grew up on the last Streetcar line in Pittsburgh (it is now an LRV Line). Service was frequent i.e. every few minutes during rush hour. If I wanted to travel to another part of town I could get a transfer onto bus lines with similar pace (i.e. a bus every few minutes). To be able to do anywhere in an area without prior planning, that is the level of mass transit you need, and most smaller cities, towns and suburbs on most major cities do NOT have that level of Service.

Before I moved to the Streetcar line, I lived on a bus line, where I had to plan very carefully when to catch the bus to get me downtown to catch another bus to the Oakland section of Pittsburgh. I had to pre-plan this and know where I was going. The bus did NOT come often enough for me use it as a spontaneous means of transportation, like a car (The streetcar I could use as a spontaneous means of transportation, but not the suburban bus line I live nearby before I moved near the Streetcar line).

The Suburban bus line had another problem. Do to the fact I had to transfer from an inner-city line from Oakland to the bus line I lived on, I could lose over a hour just waiting for the bus. IT did NOt come that often. If I had to catch another Suburban bus line, it may be a two hour wait, one in the morning, the second on the return trip. And remember I have to pay full fare BOTH WAYS, do to the fact the bus trip was so long any transfer ran out of time by the time I finished the trip.

As to Birth Certificates, every state I know of charges a fee, and if you do not have the fee, you can not get a copy of your birth certificate (Some exceptions to this rule exists, for example Pennsylvania will not charge a fee to a combat injured vet, but does it for everyone else). Again given an income of $174 a month (The cash Welfare grant in my county of Pennsylvania) can the poor pay the $15-25 being charged for such documentation? They can barely pay the rent, how do they have spare money for documentation needed to get the ID (Even if the ID itself is free).

As to illegal aliens getting IDs, no one is saying such IDs are legal, nor cheap. Illegals are often willing to pay the extra money for such illegal IDs but why should American poor have to pay a premium for an illegal ID simply on the grounds it is easier to obtain.

I suspect this will go back to court, on individual cases not the factual attack that was defeated by the Supreme Court. The Nun's are a good first case, the student whose California Driver's license was NOT good enough, and the Federal ID rejected for it not having an expiration date. I see all being attacks on this statute permitted under Steven's opinion, but rejected by Scalia. Lets see what happens next.

[pipoman]

57. We will probably have to agree to disagree

There are many vital things in our society which require a person to go out of their way and/or pay to accomplish. I strongly oppose a 'poll tax' but maintaining ID in todays world is simply a fact of life for many functions. I don't think that the answer is to allow anyone who says they are someone vote. Voter fraud is a problem. The only other alternative which I don't believe would be all bad is indelible permanent marking each person who votes with anyone who is not fluent in english required to provide ID and/or citizenship documents.

[amandabeech]

56. Do you mean naturalized citizens?

Legal aliens, or green card holders, are not eligible to vote. Only citizens have that privilege.

[pipoman]

58. Yes, thank you. N/T

[amandabeech]

60. We all have bad brain days!

Happy to help.

[TCJ70]

64. Yeah, I don't know now people do it either.

No SS card? No state id? No drivers liscence? If I didn't have one of those I'd be sunk.

[lark]

68. There is a 100% difference

The voter fraud perpetuated by the voting machines is political, done on purpose by the Repugs to limit other people's voting. the screening lists that are sent to black service people to purge them from voting polls is politically done by the Repugs to limit potential Dem voting. You have not heard of individual issues, because there generally aren't any or many. All voting issues have been done by the Repugs, and requiring voter id is another of their bag of tricks. Think of the old poll tax issue - this is just the present day version. Your world may not include people that would have a hard time, but for the very elderly and poor or transient folks, it can be an impossibility.

[xxqqqzme]

66. Bull crap - we require no ID in California.

All the times I have worked the polls on election day, not once has there ever been a problem. We are very specifically instructed NOT to ask for ID. The Voter Reg form has space for your CA ID or the last 4 digits of your social security number. It is the Registrar of Voters responsibility to verify the voter registration info. That's what they get PAID to do.

In addition the voter rolls should show how many past elections a person has voted, so if there is no history, I can see maybe if some verification is required - but again, NOT the responsibility of the poll worker. These voter ID laws are f*cked up. Doesn't surprise me, it is being pushed by publicans.

[happyslug]

51. The Actual Supreme Court Decision, it was 3-3-3 NOT 6-3

Actual opinion:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-21.pdf

Stevens, Robert and Kennedy signed onto the "opinion of the Court"

Scalia, Thomas and Alito wrote a concurring opinion.

Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer wrote a Dissent.

The two opinions that make up the "Majority" decision are interesting in where there differ. Stevens rejected the direct attack on the Statute, but seems to keep in play an attack based on an actual situation. Scalia rejects this difference, saying that no attack on the act would be upheld. Souter writes for the dissent in that he rejects the restrictions as to what ID is required as to strict. This is best observed in Scalia's first paragraph in his concurring opinion:

The lead opinion assumes petitioners’ premise that the voter-identification law “may have imposed a special burden on” some voters, ante, at 16, but holds that petitioners have not assembled evidence to show that the special burden is severe enough to warrant strict scrutiny, ante, at 18–19. That is true enough, but for the sake of clarity and finality (as well as adherence to precedent), I prefer to decide these cases on the grounds that petitioners’ premise is irrelevant and that the burden at issue is minimal and justified.

In simple terms Scalia would uphold the statute even in the case of the Nuns, while Stevens would have viewed the case of the Nuns as a FACTUAL ATTACK on the Statute as it is used even if a Facial attack on the Statute failed

Please note the difference between a facial attack and a factual Attack on a Statute. An example of a Facial Attack would be if Indiana set up the Catholic Church as its State's Official Church. Anyone, who may not even be harmed by that law, could attack the Statute as unconstitutional in its face. In a facial Attack you do NOT need to prove any actual harm to you yourself, all you have to show is something is clearly unconditional on its face (Establishment of the Catholic Church is a clear violation of the First Amendment).

A Factual Attack is when a Law is passed, and while on its face it is constitutional, but in application unconstitutional. For Example if the State says all people MUST clean up the streets in front of their homes, and then except all whites from doing so, on its face the law is constitutional, the state can require EVERYONE to clean up the street in front of their home (and this was the norm before State Highway departments took over the function when Gasoline taxes gave the state the money to do so). While on its face the law is constitutional, how it is applies its NOT, and if the application can NOT be made constitutional (i.e. truly universal) it is unconstitutional racial discrimination.

Stevens leaves open the possibility of a Factual Attack on this Statute, Scalia would cut that possibility out. The Nuns may open up a factual Attack, unless the State of Indiana address the problems the Nuns had when obtaining the required IDs.

[riverdeep]

63. I'm under no illusions that this law was passed to disenfranchise Dems.

However, in theory the law is fine. It does shift the argument, from election fraud, which is far more common, to voter fraud, which is rare. I'd like to see Scalia rule against Diebold or Sequoia.

My main issue with this law is when it was passed. A few days before an election IS a hardship. People need time to adjust, and so this particular example was just gaming the system.

However, regardless of the inconvenience and if given several months, I find it hard to believe that even the poorest or out of touch can't find transportation in all that time or the means for basic fees or find a way to have those fees waived. ID is basic in this society now, like it or not. Having that ID will probably help them out in other ways as well, so they might as well get used to it.

[snooper2]

65. nuns vote? who would have thought rofl

I swear,

I've seen every headline possible in this election cycle :rofl: