In Liberal World, requiring people to actually show proof that they are themselves is mean and bad and evil and rigging the 2012 election, according to the Washington Post’s E.J. Dionne
An attack on the right to vote is underway across the country through laws designed to make it more difficult to cast a ballot. If this were happening in an emerging democracy, we’d condemn it as election-rigging. But it’s happening here, so there’s barely a whimper.
Got that? One Man one vote is somehow anti-democratic……well, yeah, because if Democrats have to actually show an ID to vote, they won’t be able to get dead people, illegal aliens, and foreigners to vote Democratic Party, as well as having Democrats vote more than once. I remember back in 2008, receiving a new voter ID card from the Wake County Board of Elections. Except, it wasn’t addressed to me. Didn’t have my name on it. Was a woman’s name. Black. Democrat. Lived in Charlotte, NC. I know the last because the voter rolls showed her as registered in Mecklenburg County. It would have been easy to vote in Charlotte, then drive to Raleigh. Obviously, I reported this to the Elections Board, who, well, did something.
The laws are being passed in the name of preventing “voter fraud.†But study after study has shown that fraud by voters is not a major problem — and is less of a problem than how hard many states make it for people to vote in the first place. Some of the new laws, notably those limiting the number of days for early voting, have little plausible connection to battling fraud.
Remember when voter fraud was a big deal among Democrats? Remember their caterwauling about stolen elections? Which mostly disappeared when they won Congress in 2006, and the White House in 2008. But, they are worried about losing the Senate and White House in 2012, so, they need every edge they can get. And making sure that liberals can vote multiple times, along with the dead voting, is an important measure.
Oh, and then there’s this New Mexico study, which showed 64,000 issues of possible voter fraud in the 2008 election. Obviously, requiring ID to vote is not a perfect idea, because illegals and foreigners are using said ID to vote (you’d think Democrats would approve of this), so, the obvious solution is to stop giving American ID to foreigners.
These statutes are not neutral. Their greatest impact will be to reduce turnout among African Americans, Latinos and the young. It is no accident that these groups were key to Barack Obama’s victory in 2008 — or that the laws in question are being enacted in states where Republicans control state governments.
See? It’s raaaaacist. Because, in Dionne’s World, Blacks and Latinos are too poor to afford an ID card, something required for writing a check, driving, taking a plane flight, using a credit card, signing a contract for a new cell phone, renting a car…we use ID lots of places. Not sure about you, but I was itching to get my drivers license, and took my test on my birthday.
In part because of a surge of voters who had not cast ballots before, the United States elected its first African American president in 2008. Are we now going to witness a subtle return of Jim Crow voting laws?
Democrats know that requiring ID would only solve some of the issue: people can easily spoof with fake IDs or with their regular ID. What they want to accomplish with this line is to set it up so that when Obama loses, they can blame the GOP, saying that Obama lost not because of his being the most incompetent president ever, but for their “racist” and “anti-democracy” voting policies.
Others, via Memeorandum: That Mr. G Guy’s Blog, Moe Lane, Althouse, PoliPundit.com, National Review, iOwnTheWorld.com and Prairie Weather
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
The only thing that I can never figure out about the constant whining the “voter fraud is not an issue,” is where do these people think the controversy over the 2000 Bush Gore election started?
It started when a judge in Miami Dad county found the corruption on the voter rolls so rampant and that both parties were committing voter fraud that he ordered the state of Florida to make changes.
Those changes, coupled with the idiocy of people not checking their ballots, led to the problems in 2000.
Prior to that, dead people, people that were no longer in the state, pets, etc were all voting in Miami-Dade.
The left has real issues with history.
[…] Update; The Pirate’s Cove also has some choice words for E.J. Dionne; Got that? One Man one vote is somehow anti-democratic……well, yeah, because if Democrats have to actually show an ID to vote, they won’t be able to get dead people, illegal aliens, and foreigners to vote Democratic Party, as well as having Democrats vote more than once. I remember back in 2008, receiving a new voter ID card from the Wake County Board of Elections. Except, it wasn’t addressed to me. Didn’t have my name on it. Was a woman’s name. Black. Democrat. Lived in Charlotte, NC. I know the last because the voter rolls showed her as registered in Mecklenburg County. It would have been easy to vote in Charlotte, then drive to Raleigh. Obviously, I reported this to the Elections Board, who, well, did something. […]
Linked and quoted http://wp.me/pTkxi-KB
Good article, one among many on this issue.
It’s the same old BS canard spewed out the backside of every Liberal.
Why? Because voter fraud works for them. It’s why ACORN is in business – and many of its ‘activists’ are in jail.
They are the poster child for Cloward–Piven.
But this speaks to ancillary issues regarding the vote process; namely, why bother havÂing peoÂple regÂisÂter at all? I mean, that’s a lot of trouÂble for some folks, requirÂing them to actuÂally do someÂthing to be a parÂticÂiÂpatÂing citizen.
Why isn’t that step in the process considered possible ‘disenfranchisement?’
And if registered, why bother having people show up at a polling place? I mean, that’s a lot of trouÂble for some folks, requiring them to actually leave their home and find transportation.
Why isn’t that step in the process considered possible ‘disenfranchisement?’
With this millennium’s wireless technology, people should demand the ‘right’ to lay in bed all day on election day.
How dare uncaring bureaucrats inconvenience citizens!
Yet, upon arriving at the polling place, why burden folks with producing any form of ID, at all?
I mean, that’s a lot of trouÂble for some folks to actually place an official voter registration card, or a utility bill in their pocket.
Like W. Teach said,
Or buying liquor. Photo ID was even required at president-elect Obama’s 2008 election night party in Chicago.
But Liberals don’t want anyone, anywhere to be bothered with positive photo ID on voting day.
Why? Because voter fraud works for them.
[…] tip to William Teach, who adds, Democrats know that requiring ID would only solve some of the issue: people can easily […]
Prove it.
The only kind of voter fraud which exists is the kind like Lyndon Johnson used in the 1948 Democratic Primary.
Limited voting hours, limiting voters (did you miss the “you can’t use a student ID?), making voting harder….it’s the conservatives way.
By the way, you know the difference between “writing a check, driving, taking a plane flight, using a credit card, signing a contract for a new cell phone, renting a car” and voting? As a lawyer, lemme help you out, you don’t have a Federal or state right to drive a car or write a check or get a new phone; you do to vote.
Impinging on people’s civil liberties? How wonderfully right wing.
How, exactly, is this impinging on people’s civil liberties? First of all, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that ID cannot be required as proof that the voter is really the voter. By your definition, the TSA requiring ID to fly impinges on civil liberties. Government requiring ID to purchase alcohol, tobacco, and certain over the counter medications would impinge.
Most people, including poor and minorities, have some sort of ID. Why are you liberals so dead set against requiring ID?
As a lawyer, lemme help you out,….
And as a lawyer, you should know that a student ID doesn’t prove residency in a state.
Of course, voting in a state in which you are not a resident is voter fraud.
Now certainly as a liberal, you wouldn’t want people to break the law and vote in places where they are not legally allowed to do so would you?
Or is that type of voter fraud acceptable to you?
Look, William, I’m used to you being a partisan hack, but lack of reading?
Question answered, big guy, in my first comment.
As far as the rest of your inanity, it may shock you to know all laws aren’t in the Constitution. The VRA, for instance, is not in the Constitution.
Did you not read Dionne’s article? Because it keeps a percentage of people who have the right to vote from voting. The percentage is small, yet a right is a right. What is it about rights that conservatives don’t understand? As a citizen, you have them, no matter what your circumstances. People on boards like this are so afraid of the Phantom Latin menace, they miss the fact the for the poor (who don’t have cars) or the elderly (who don’t drive), you are requiring them to take an extra step to exercise a right.
And, as Dionne’s article makes clear, apparently one form of ID is superior to others.
Voting should be easy: polls should be open on Saturday for 12+ hours (like most representative democracies). One should have to register, have local authorities approve that registration, and then go to the polling station and vote. You don’t need a driver’s license to go to church, to speak your mind, or get a lawyer if you’re arrested, why must you insist someone has one to exercise his/her right to vote?
Wait, I’ll answer for you: so voting is hard for certain people and they won’t do it. This is about partisan advantage. I will accept that most right wing bloggers just think this issue is about “I show my ID to get on a plane,” but after so many years of pointing out what’s really at issue, y’all still don’t understand it (or even try).
Dionne is not saying those laws are racist; he’s saying they are aimed at black voter and Latino voters and the young and the reason is political, NOT racial. Those voters are more likely to vote for Democrats.
I understand the entire Conservative movement has a chip on its shoulder about any hint of the “R” word, but this is about partisan advantages by your political leaders and you should be able to acknowledge it, even if, like Justice Stevens, Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy, you consider the harm de minimis
You should stop arguing the defensive and just freakin’ embrace it: we won in 2010, so suck it. Instead, you get all mad when someone points out you are playing hard-nosed politics in violation (I think) of the 24th Amendment.
Thanks for your time
TimB is lawyer? Remind me please not to contract with this clown.
Like most rights, the right to vote is not open ended. The are rules and regulations, and even restrictions (felons prohibited to vote the most obvious).
All states that have photo ID requirements provide these IDs FREE OF CHARGE to the indigent citizens of their state.
In my state of Missouri, the list of acceptable forms of voter ID is long, but doesn’t (yet) include photo ID.
Acceptable forms of polling place ID include, but are not limited to, WIC CARD; BIRTH CERTIFICATE; SOCIAL SECURITY CARD; and guess what? If you need a replacement for any of these documents, it REQUIRES a photo ID to obtain them.
As I stated above, all the requirements in the process to vote could be construed as ‘disenfranchising:’ registration, showing up on election day, producing any form of ID, etc.
But that’s not the issue, is it?
Liberals don’t want anyone, anywhere to be bothered with positive photo ID on voting day.
Why? Because voter fraud works for them.
Illegal aliens and acorn-ites, who mainly vote democrat, hardest hit.
Because it keeps a percentage of people who have the right to vote from voting.
That is his assertion timb. It is not a fact.
You don’t need a driver’s license to go to church, to speak your mind, or get a lawyer if you’re arrested, why must you insist someone has one to exercise his/her right to vote?
You don’t need a permit to have a rally? You don’t need a permit to build a church? While you do not have to have an ID to get a lawyer, you DO have to have an ID to have a lawyer provided for you at the expense of the taxpayer. You must show that you are economically unable to afford a lawyer and that means proof of ID.
The right to vote is an individual right, and as such must be protected by the government. You, nor anyone, has the right to steal my vote and present yourself as someone you are not. You do not have the right to vote for in place of deceased people. You do not have the right to vote in the place off your dog or cat.
Preventing that kind of fraud is not a restriction on anyone’s right to vote. In fact, it is a case where the government is taking a reasonable step to protect and safeguard the right of the legitimate voter.
I cannot understand why you would not want that to happen other than you believe that allowing voter fraud is a good thing for the country.
giratcarver, building a church and having a rally are collective actions; voting, exervising one’s free speech, or attending church are individual actions. Please note the difference.
Meanwhile, since William is too busy posting cheescake shots which claim that climate change is the just the fever dream of every climatologist in the world, I thought I might come back and just point to thi study (yes, I know “kill the messenger”), which shows how few people in urban areas actually have id’s.
http://www4.uwm.edu/eti/barriers/DriversLicense.pdf
As for the recitation of Missouri law, kudos to Missouri for not being Indina, Texas, etc. In Indiana, your id must have a photo and an expiration date.
By the way, how silly are you people about illegals? Do you know any of them? Here’s a hint, they usually don’t go near official government agencies, since illegals believe every aspect of governance is tied to the INS. The idea that a bunch of illegals would hanging around a polling place (so one of you nice, helpful folks could drop a dime on them) is hysterical.
But, as noted, what would a lawyer know about law? Just like climate scientists know less about climate than Rush Limbaugh and historians don’t kno nuthin”bout history, the “conservative” movement in this country has become so sneeringly anti-intellectual that it boggles the mind. Which goes to the idea that facts are somehow ideological, for instance when the University of Wisconsin conducts research into the availability of driver’s licenses, those facts are “liberal.”
Just an odd movement…
Timb, if indeed you are a lawyer, then you’re a poorly educated one. After reading your last comment, I see all kinds of errors that a simple proofreading would have taken care of. Do they not teach that at law school? Bet your secretary was out to lunch when you wrote this, huh? I can see missing one misspelling or punctuation error, but your comment is rife with errors. Not to pick nits here, but it makes you come off as some uneducated buffoon.
In my state, you do have to show proof of ID to vote. I think that’s a good requirement. Also, if you neglect to vote in an election cycle, your name is taken off of the voter rolls and you have to re-register to vote. And guess what, you have to show proof of ID and residency to register again. After all, I don’t want “Joe Blow from Idaho” to steal my vote with improper ID and I’m sure you as an upstanding American citizen wouldn’t want that either, right?
giratcarver, building a church and having a rally are collective actions; voting, exervising one’s free speech, or attending church are individual actions. Please note the difference.
tinmb, I have noticed the difference and there is none. Holding a rally is the individuals collectively exercising free speech. Period. Building a church is the exercise of freedom of religion. Period.
Even if one were to agree to your assertion, which is clearly against the Constitution and recent Supreme Court decisions, why would a permit be needed if the right to assemble is guaranteed by the Constitution as well? Notice that it is an individual right, not a so called “collective right” as you have tried to argue here.
And just so you know, most cities require a permit for someone – an individual – to speak on a street corner.
I thought I might come back and just point to thi study (yes, I know “kill the messengerâ€), which shows how few people in urban areas actually have id’s.
Try again. The study does not show how few people in urban areas have id’s, it is a study on how many people have DRIVER’S LICENSE. To quote you, “please note the difference.”
The State of Wisconsin offers a state ID which would satisfy the same identification requirements as a driver’s license.
Now, timb, why would you deliberately misstate that drivers licenses and id’s are the same thing? Do you think it added to the weight of your message? Did you think that your deliberate misleading statement would not be discovered?
No one has to “shoot the messenger,” timb.
You have shot yourself.
In the foot.
Repeatedly.