Saturday, October 22, 2005

THE LOGIC BEHIND VOTER IDS

I've been following the progress on getting states to require IDs to vote. Georgia just struck down a requirement. Other states are considering enacting legislation, as well. The Democrats, uniformly, are against it.

What are their arguments?

  • From the Democratic Party web site:
    Today, "a federal court temporarily barred Georgia from enforcing a new state law requiring voters to show photo identification at the polls." The federal judge hearing the case in Georgia "agreed with critics who claimed the law amounted to an unconstitutional poll tax."
    A poll tax?

    Mister, you've got to be kidding. I can't think of a mentally stable adult over 18, with the possible exception of someone recently moved, who can't produce a legal ID. Without an ID, you can't open a bank account, get a library card, video card, or grocery frequent-shopper card. You can't rent an apartment, drive a car, or get a job.

    So, no person who does any of the above can claim they can't produce an ID when asked.

    What are these acceptable IDs?
    - Georgia driver's license (they struck the phrase "valid", allowing those with expired or suspended licenses to use it for ID purposes)
    - ID card issued by any branch of the government, provided it had a photo
    - US passport
    - Government employee photo ID
    - Military ID
    - Tribal ID card, with photo

    I looked over the bill. The original language contained other acceptable ID, including gun license, employee ID, and even a utility bill, etc. I don't know which legislators objected to the other IDs, but the list seemed to contain too many exceptions, not including photos. There's a provision that indigent citizens may have the fee for an ID waived. That didn't even satisfy the critics.

  • It's an insult to Hispanics to ask them to prove that they're eligible to vote.

    Really? Someone ought to inform the Mexican government:
    Every registered Mexican voter has a Voter ID card, complete with photograph, fingerprint, and a holographic image to prevent counterfeiting.

    At the Mexican polling station, there is a book containing the photograph of every voter in the precinct. This book is available to the poll workers and observers from various parties. If there’s a doubt as to someone’s identity, the poll workers can simply look up the person’s name and see if the photo matches up.

    The Mexican voter’s thumb is smudged with ink. That way, if he shows up at another polling site to vote, they know he’s already voted elsewhere. (The ink wears off after a few days.)
    The above information is from VDARE.com
  • Blacks are unfairly targeted, according to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund:
    the pending ID bills are an effort to keep minority and elderly participation at low levels by requiring more hoops to jump through in order to take part in the democratic process.

    Georgia's proposal is one of the most onerous.

    On April 22, Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue signed one of the strictest measures in the United States for screening voters. It requires voters to present one of six forms of government-issued photo identification at the polls. Under the old law, Georgia voters were allowed to present any of 17 forms of identification, including bank statements and utility bills, which contain no photos.



The Democratic has a confusing statement about the issue. On one hand:
Democrats are determined to reforming the voting system in this country to create federal standards for our elections. Our voting system must include verification, accountability, and accuracy.
That sounds good, doesn't it? But then their site goes on to say:
Democrats want to increase access to polls with Election Day registration, shorter lines, and early voting. We also want to modernize election equipment and increase impartiality.
If you have Election Day registration, won't that increase the number of questionable votes? More importantly, how can you "include verification" if you won't use picture ID? Not that having a friend vouch for you isn't a time-honored tradition in some parts of the country, but, the trouble is, those parts of the country are just exactly the ones where voter fraud is rampant.

Now, I've lived in small towns before. Towns so small that, before you can get your phone turned on in the new place, everyone in town knows who you are, the names of your kids, and your party affiliation. I could go anywhere in that region, and cash a check without a driver's license with me.

Obviously, they could have dispensed with the check on Election Day. But they checked my ID when I voted. I'm not kidding. They checked it. Every time.

Now, they obviously knew me. Hell, they'd lend me $5 if I asked. Without signing paper. But they took their responsibilities as registrars and poll watchers seriously. Trust, but verify, as a very wise man once said.

Why don't they do that in the big cities? Where they REALLY don't know your name?

Because they want an excuse to steal the election. But, without actually FEELING like a crook. So, they don't ask for the ID. They don't officially want to know. They turn a blind eye.

And they pervert the Constitution.

Tags =

No comments: