Identifying the whiners
posted at 7:28 am on April 29, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
After the Supreme Court upheld the Indiana voter-ID law yesterday by a 6-3 vote, I figured that we would hear whining from the usual suspects this morning. Interestingly, the pundits seem remarkably quiet about it, but the editorial boards of the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times proved me correct. What a relief! Both see this as a “retreat” and a dark day for democracy, when the decision follows common sense.
Let’s start with the Gray Lady, which sees this as a “sad reversal”:
Democracy was the big loser in the Supreme Court on Monday. The court upheld Indiana’s voter identification law, which solves a nearly nonexistent problem by putting major barriers between voters — particularly minorities — and the ballot box. Worse, the court set out a standard that clears the way for other states to adopt rules that discourage disadvantaged groups from voting. It is a sad reversal for a court that once saw itself as a champion of voting rights.
In 2005, Indiana passed one of the nation’s toughest voter ID laws. It requires voters to present government-issued photo ID at the polls. Private college IDs, employee ID cards and utility bills are unacceptable. For people without a driver’s license — who are disproportionately poor and minority — the burden is considerable. To get acceptable ID, many people would be forced to pay fees for underlying documents, such as birth certificates.
This should not have been a hard case. The court has long recognized that the right to vote is so fundamental that a state cannot restrict it unless it can show that the harm it is seeking to prevent outweighs the harm it imposes on voters.
On the Left Coast, the LA Times sounded less hysterical but still misses the point:
Indiana has a right to safeguard the integrity of its elections, but its identification requirement imposes sufficiently burdensome rules that it raises the question of whether the state is actually trying to discourage certain types of people — the poor, the elderly, the infirm — from exercising their right to vote. It’s one thing to deter fraud; it’s another to deter voting, particularly by certain classes of voters.
Despite their potential for abuse, identification rules might be worth considering if Indiana were combating widespread voter impersonation. However, even the court’s majority opinion recognized that “the record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history.” So the state risks disenfranchising tens of thousands of voters to fix a problem that does not exist.
Both editorials raise the specter of the poll tax, a despicable effort to deny the poor and mainly black voters access to the franchise. The NYT asserts that this court would likely have upheld it, while the LAT merely uses it to show a supposed inconsistency between the 1966 court and the current court. But that is a ludicrous assumption. The paying of a tax had no material connection to the vote, which is why the Supreme Court threw it out, decades too late. As even the two editorials grudgingly admit, the state has a serious and vital interest to ensure that people are properly identified as eligible to vote in the precinct in which they cast votes, which makes this completely different from the poll tax.
Why is identification important? When anyone commits fraud to cast a vote in an election, it diminishes the power of each legitimate vote in the community by diluting them. That effect can easily extend past the precinct, as the 7,000 fraudulent votes in Milwaukee demonstrated in 2004. It perverts the results, and worse, it instills a mistrust of the democratic processes that undergird our Republic. Voter fraud damages democracy in both ways.
States have a vital interest in preventing that kind of damage, and waiting until the damage occurs to address that interest makes no sense at all. Should we wait to pass laws against real estate fraud until a wave of it sweeps across in each community — or does it make more sense to learn a lesson from the first state in which it happens? How many elections have to be delegitimized through fraud before the NYT and LAT believe a state can start asking to check ID, something that everyone writing a check at a grocery store has to do?
Having a government ID is not a high hurdle in any case, and certainly not in Indiana, where the state will subsidize its cost to low-income voters. The importance of elections and the vital interest in maintaining confidence in their results means that American voters can assume the trivial burden of getting an ID in the months preceding an election. Or perhaps the NYT won’t mind when the Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade on a 14-3 vote.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
The Dems hate voter ID laws because it keeps them from committing election fraud on a mass scale.
flipflop on April 29, 2008 at 7:34 AM
It’s probably pure coincidence that the #1 issue posted at Obama’s campaign website is …
By “every citizen” he probably means taking metropolitan “minorities” to rural areas 500 miles away (read: Jesusland) so that they can cast their vote 2 or 3 times.
Niko on April 29, 2008 at 7:34 AM
I suspect that the broad support the Dems have for giving driver’s licenses to illegals was a hedge against voter ID laws.
flipflop on April 29, 2008 at 7:43 AM
Are they saying minorites are incapable of getting IDs? I guess they don’t take airplanes.
hadsil on April 29, 2008 at 7:44 AM
It is not tough to get a state photo ID. I have a child that will never be able to drive, but when he turned 18 I had to get an ID for him and all it required was a copy of his health insurance card and maybe a student ID or report card. It was not a big deal and cost all of about $10.00. What is of concern, however, the agency for the disabled that he attends for “daycare” insisted that he should register to vote. They did not want me, his guardian, signing the “opt out” form. If he opted out of registering to vote, they wanted his signature (he can’t hold a pencil, let alone write). Now that is a concern. I signed the opt out form and told them if they had a problem with it, tough.
bopbottle on April 29, 2008 at 7:45 AM
There is no “right to vote” in the federal constitution. The Court has said that if a state grants the right to vote, it cannot discriminate.
bopbottle on April 29, 2008 at 7:48 AM
Hey, stupid…there’s no evidence because there was no way to expose the fraud! That’s like saying scientists didn’t need to invent microscopes because the record contained no evidence that things that small existed.
Heh.
James on April 29, 2008 at 7:54 AM
Two points:
1. When you saw it was 6 to 3, there was no question who the trio of dissenters were, was there?
2. Obama is a Chicago Democrat, so for him to oppose any effort at reducing voter fraud is sort of like the French losing a war–it just comes natural.
radjah shelduck on April 29, 2008 at 7:54 AM
Additionally, if there’s a right to vote, then why did Jesse Jackson Jr introduce a bill to guarantee that ‘right’ to vote?
bikermailman on April 29, 2008 at 7:57 AM
Fixed it for ya. I gotcher back, Gray Lady.
smellthecoffee on April 29, 2008 at 8:09 AM
Maybe I’m just dense, but that joke didn’t go through my brain properly. I spent time trying to recall where there might be a 17 member court. Then I realized it was a voter fraud joke.
AbaddonsReign on April 29, 2008 at 8:14 AM
LA Times:
“So the state risks disenfranchising tens of thousands of voters to fix a problem that does not exist.”
Can we wonder if the Times would admit that the “problem” exist in Southern Cal? Or for that matter, most of California that requires no voter ID?
Rovin on April 29, 2008 at 8:18 AM
radjah shelduck on April 29, 2008 at 7:54 AM
Good points, both…
What surprised me was the fact that Justice Stevens is the one who wrote the opinion.
Mean while, the NYT continues it’s slide down the sewer pipe: NEW YORK Print circulation continues on its steep downward slide, the Audit Bureau of Circulations revealed this morning in releasing the latest numbers for some of the country’s largest dailies in the six-month period ending March 31, 2008. When a full analysis appears it is expected to find, according to sources, the biggest dip yet, about 3.5% daily and 4.5 for Sunday.
The following circulation compares the new data to the same period a year ago. Daily circulation is the Monday-through-Friday average.
– The New York Times lost more than 150,000 copies on Sunday. Circulation on that day fell a whopping 9.2% to 1,476,400. The paper’s daily circulation declined 3.8% to 1,077,256.
The LAT is already in the sewer.
Keemo on April 29, 2008 at 8:19 AM
People who are on welfare and food stamps have to present ID to claim these benefits. People who get a social security benefit have to present ID to cash their checks. What’s the big deal? The only people who resist having an ID most likely have something to hide.
Guardian on April 29, 2008 at 8:19 AM
I guess you’re a big fan of the government passing costly and burdensome laws in response to completely hypothetical situations for which no proven damage has occurred or is likely to occur. I would think that would sorta sink your conservative credentials, but if this is really the argument you want to stick with, by all means, do so.
sashal on April 29, 2008 at 8:19 AM
That is pretty awful that they would even approach you on such a thing. I’m sorry you went through that.
Pam on April 29, 2008 at 8:22 AM
It’s neither here nor there as far as the voter ID law is concerned, but there so totally is a right to vote.
Article IV Section 4 of the US Constitution says:
That doesn’t mean states like New York, with Democrat-run governments are unconstitutional. What that means is that in the each of the states the people elect their leader. You should give the founding fathers more credit than overlooking such a basic principle.
Key points to remember:
- Not every right is in the Bill of Rights.
- Just like the right to free speech or the right to bear arms, the right to vote, too, has reasonable restrictions. Yesterday the Court has declared that having to identify yourself is a reasonable restriction to the right to vote.
- What the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments do is they specify certain restrictions on the right to vote that are not reasonable.
Just another useless factoid.
factoid on April 29, 2008 at 8:25 AM
I guess the LAT’s was too busy bashing Bush when the reg’s in California were changed to protect us from voter fraud:
Section 303 (b) of the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) sets forth requirements for some voters to provide ID to vote.
Implementation of the specifics of this requirement can be quite complicated for election officials, but in general: If a voter registers to vote in a county on or after January 1, 2003 , the registration is by mail, and the voter has not previously voted in that county, then the voter must either provide ID when he or she registers or provide ID when he or she votes .
HOW DOES A VOTER PROVE ID?
Section 303 (b) (2) specifies the ID requirements for voters who vote in person or by absentee ballot.
“In person” voters must show a “current and valid photo identification” or “a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the voter.”
—————-
Third, Section 303 (b) (3) states that if the voter provides his or her driver’s license number, or the last 4 digits of his or her social security number, on the form to register to vote, and the elections official can verify the number is correct, then the ID requirement does not apply.
Shivas Irons on April 29, 2008 at 8:25 AM
Now, in this sorta thing, your real colors come out there Gilligan. What kinda conservative is for a national id card? I think it’s an infringement of our civil liberties to force us to have one. That’s always been the conservative attitude toward this sorta thing.
“Your papers please.” Country is becoming Soviet more and more by the minute, and with you toeing the line.
Watchman on April 29, 2008 at 8:26 AM
I guess the dead don’t drive.
N. O'Brain on April 29, 2008 at 8:27 AM
I signed the opt out form and told them if they had a
Good on ya, bobpottle. Well done!!
Shivas Irons on April 29, 2008 at 8:27 AM
Right.
James on April 29, 2008 at 8:28 AM
I don’t know why the liberal papers are whining about the poll tax.
After all, it was an invention of the Democratic party.
N. O'Brain on April 29, 2008 at 8:28 AM
Going to your city hall and paying five bucks for an ID card is not a huge burden. Maybe the “poor” living on the government dole can stop buying new plasma screen tvs and second (or third) cars for just a few moments and go get that ID.
amkun on April 29, 2008 at 8:29 AM
Oh, c’mon, now. In many localities these days, you can’t get a beer without providing proper ID, regardless of how old you look. Don’t you think protecting the integrity of elections is at least as important as getting a beer?
As someone pointed out earlier, the main reason that there’s little evidence of previous voter fraud is that without voter ID laws, there’s little chance of detecting it.
flipflop on April 29, 2008 at 8:30 AM
Help.
Does “/link” box not work on this venue? My comment about California Reg’s for Voting was supported with info from the Sec’y of State site:
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/hava_id_requirements.htm
Shivas Irons on April 29, 2008 at 8:32 AM
sashal on April 29, 2008 at 8:19 AM
Ah, no matter what the venue, ol’ sash is incoherent.
Gotta love the consistency, however.
N. O'Brain on April 29, 2008 at 8:33 AM
Of course there is a way to prove the fraud. My grandfather, a registered Democratic from St. Louis MO, but switched it to my parents house in MI, died in Aug 2000. My dad ran a check on his fathers affairs as he was going through the estate..My Grandfather rose from the dead and voted in MO in the Nov 2000 election..
MI requires id and the biggest test of it was this past January..at the end of the day, no one died, no one pushed an old lady down three flights of stairs for showing up without an id, no one filed suit and in the end, it is just another way to do business.
Pam on April 29, 2008 at 8:33 AM
“Don’t you think protecting the integrity of elections is at least as important as getting a beer?”
They certainly didn’t in the 2000 election, when people were voting for the guy they’d most likely sit and drink a beer with, then watched him steal the election. Integrity of elections, in the United States? Indeed. Not for awhile anyhow.
Watchman on April 29, 2008 at 8:33 AM
heheheehehahhahahahhaaaaaa!
Shivas Irons on April 29, 2008 at 8:36 AM
Ed:
Or the Washington State elections of (IIRC) 2005. The winner (oddly enough a Democrat) became governor only through large-scale fraud in the Seattle area. John Fund’s Stealing Elections shows again and again how Democrats have used voter fraud to swing elections their way. That’s why their activists are so opposed to voter ID laws.
(To be fair, Fund points out that Republican electoral corruption is more often committed through voter intimidation, including abusing an ID system, than through creating ghost voters. A very dry, but great book.)
irishspy on April 29, 2008 at 8:36 AM
Right! And why did we build an arsenal of nuclear weapons to deter the USSR from nuking us? The record contained no evidence of any such attack in the past.
Answer: sometimes you take action to protect important things and processes, like, say, voting. Every state should be doing exactly what Indiana is doing, and anyone who thinks that there is no evidence of voter fraud in this country is just stupid.
The DemoRats are rightly upset with this roadblock against their repeated offenses of voter fraud around the country.
Jaibones on April 29, 2008 at 8:36 AM
To the no-fraud proven crowd:
Where, when, have you seen a statewide audit of any voter rolls?
To the fraud crowd:
What makes that photo-ID proof that you are a citizen?
Not trying to be a smart*** with the questions.
Limerick on April 29, 2008 at 8:38 AM
I thought that states were offering the id for free to certain incomes. I also can’t figure out how these people are able to function without some form of id?!!?
There is an upside to this on a sad note though..All those homeless people will be eligible for a free id..it might be a good time to get them id’ed and maybe just maybe some families will reconnect with them..as it is, with no id, a person looking for them would not be too successful because they leave no paper trail.
Pam on April 29, 2008 at 8:39 AM
One problem at a time, please…the ID law is meant to prove that you really are who you say you are (fake IDs notwithstanding, but I presume they cost more than the real IDs), and to ensure that you register/vote only one time in one district per election.
James on April 29, 2008 at 8:43 AM
Watchman at 8:33AM:
Fixed it for you.
irishspy on April 29, 2008 at 8:44 AM
By the way, in Indiana a person WITHOUT an ID can still cast what is called a Provisional Ballot. Their vote will be held in “suspense” until such time as the person can later deliver proof to the local Voting volunteers of being an Indiana citizen, and registerd voter.
Seems rather fair to moi.
Shivas Irons on April 29, 2008 at 8:45 AM
As far as I can tell, in Texas, all an illegal has to do to vote is check the box on the voter registration form that says ‘I am a citizen’, then show up at the polls with his drivers license.
Yes, I understand that that is fraud, but who’s checking the validity of the check box answer?
Limerick on April 29, 2008 at 8:46 AM
And 9/11 was a government conspiracy! Iraq was all about oil, man!
amkun on April 29, 2008 at 8:47 AM
Some states have specific cards just for that purpose. Also, a person goes throught the DMV, at least here in MI, for their voter registration. That is a seperate transaction from the id…I go to my polling station and if I am registered, and in the right place, I show up on the roll and am asked for id.
Pam on April 29, 2008 at 8:47 AM
What is this world coming to? Now we’re disenfranchising the dead in Chicago
Capitalist Infidel on April 29, 2008 at 8:48 AM
As I said, that’s a separate problem that isn’t addressed by this law. While the perfect solution would be to ensure only citizens vote in our elections (living, eligible citizens voting just once per election in the correct district), wouldn’t you prefer that non-citizens be limited to casting just one fraudulent vote instead of the current free-for-all of trucking people (citizens and non-citizens alike) around all election day to cast dozens of fraudulent votes?
James on April 29, 2008 at 8:53 AM
I’m really surprised the two Timeses didn’t make the mature and rational case that the Supreme Court ruling is disenfranchising the voting rights of vampires, since they can’t be photographed.
jon1979 on April 29, 2008 at 8:59 AM
What, you have to be an American citizen to vote? There goes a significant portion of Democrat voters.
I don’t think that the law goes far enough. It’s too easy for an illegal alien to get an ID in this country. There should be a birth certificate requirement and any form of verification possible to prove citizenship.
orlandocajun on April 29, 2008 at 9:01 AM
Whatever happened to preventative medicine? The NYT’s would rather that Indiana had problems before they took action? Would they rather have a situation like PA? The Justice Department had to oversee their primary. Or how about ACORN?
Pam on April 29, 2008 at 9:03 AM
Yes, I’m with you on your points. I agree with the ID law and the Supreme’s decision. I guess I just can’t understand why it is the government’s responsibity to prove you are not a citizen instead of it being an individual’s responsibility to prove they are.
Limerick on April 29, 2008 at 9:04 AM
Just for fun, and the “Watchman”:
“You wanna talk about Bush versus Gore. I perceive that,” he replied. “I and my court owe no apology whatever for Bush versus Gore. We did the right thing. So there!”
“People say that that decision was not based on judicial philosophy but on politics,” Stahl asks.
“I say nonsense,” Scalia says.
Was it political?
“Gee, I really don’t wanna get into - I mean this is - get over it. It’s so old by now. The principal issue in the case, whether the scheme that the Florida Supreme Court had put together violated the federal Constitution, that wasn’t even close. The vote was seven to two,” Scalia says.
Moreover, he says it was not the court that made this a judicial question.
“It was Al Gore who made it a judicial question. It was he who brought it into the Florida courts. We didn’t go looking for trouble. It was he who said, ‘I want this to be decided by the courts.’ What are we supposed to say? ‘Oh, not important enough,’” Scalia jokes.
“It ended up being a political decision” Stahl points out.
“Well you say that. I don’t say that,” Scalia replies.
“You don’t think it handed the election to George Bush?” Stahl asks.
“Well how does that make it a political decision?” Scalia asks.
“It decided the election,” Stahl says.
“If that’s all you mean by it, yes,” Scalia says.
“That’s all I mean by it,” Stahl says.
“Oh, ok. I suppose it did. Although you should add to that that it would have come out the same way, no matter what,” Scalia says.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/24/60minutes/main4040290_page3.shtml
Shivas Irons on April 29, 2008 at 9:16 AM
There have been numerous cases of in-person voter fraud in a variety of states. If you’re interested, read the amicus briefs submitted in the Indiana case — where the fraud cases are described and supporting references are provided.
Or you could just ignore the facts and stick to your talking points, like any good Liberal.
AZCoyote on April 29, 2008 at 9:30 AM
For citizens!!!
The 3 justices who voted against this are despicable traitors to the U.S.
Shut…the hell…up…liberal douchebag. If people can wheel themselves over to the voting booth, then they can wheel themselves over to the DMV to get a freaking ID. With all the wellfare they get, they can afford it if they stop wasting their handouts on flat screen TV’s.
And liberals need to shut up about “minorities” being prevented from voting, by “minorities” they mean illegal aliens, which is who the liberals want to empower.
That anyone would think voter ID is a bad thing is pathetic. They want to hurt the U.S.
Grafted on April 29, 2008 at 9:34 AM
All ballots and instructions should be in English, too.
Tom
marinetbryant on April 29, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Yeah, those expensive birth certificates, no need in having those things around…
right2bright on April 29, 2008 at 9:55 AM
I.e. Illegal Immigrants
aengus on April 29, 2008 at 9:56 AM
Now lets push for civics and literacy tests again. I concluded idiots and ignoramuses should not get to vote.
dogsoldier on April 29, 2008 at 9:57 AM
FYI, when my mother recently passed away, we had to have a copy of her birth certificate to bury her…She had one nicely filed away and it helped in the order of things.
Shouldn’t we all have a birth certificate? Eventually you need one, or at least a close relative will need one to bury you.
right2bright on April 29, 2008 at 9:58 AM
Please define “burdensome”, I know that is the word the liberals are using to shock people, but maybe you could use your own words.
right2bright on April 29, 2008 at 10:01 AM
I am curious about how to quantify this vast “underclass” of people that do not have access to a photo ID of some sort. I am not sure where they live, but in my daily life, I regularly have to show photo ID for various things.
Stev0 on April 29, 2008 at 10:03 AM
The NYT asserts no such thing. All it does is imply that the 1966 Supreme Court would likely have upheld the poll tax had it adopted the reasoning advanced by Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito in yesterday’s ruling. It did not imply that anyone on today’s Supreme Court would ignore the plain language of the 24th Amendment and uphold a poll tax today.
Xrlq on April 29, 2008 at 10:07 AM
I really want to know where are all these mythical poor minorities who cannot get to a DMV for a free ID. I suppose none of these poor minorities have a job, or had to cash a check, or bought alcohol, or done anything else that requires proof of identification. Collecting public assistance requires ID. Medicaid requires ID. If Democrats could ever actually produce such people I might be more sympathetic to their arguments.
The real reason Democrats oppose ID laws is because it keeps them from getting votes cast for people like Bobpottle’s disabled child. The old and infirm are a key constituency for Democrats and they expend a lot of resources getting them to “vote,” with many of them having no idea what they are doing. I have no doubt that Bobpottle’s child would have been “voting” if he had acquiesced to registering him, even though he could not sign an absentee ballot or understand who or what he was voting for.
This is the “disenfranchisement” that Democrats fear and do not want to talk about. To them the “right to vote” includes a “right” to have a Democrat volunteer fill out your ballot for you or go into the voting booth and pull the lever for you. It includes a “right” to be put on a bus and told which hole to punch, and be given $10 or a pack of cigarettes after you do. It includes the right for dogs and cats to be registered voters and actually cast votes.
In California this argument may be about illegal aliens voting, but in places like Indiana it is about marginally competent and even incompetent voters and non-existent people being registered and having votes cast for them by Democrats.
rockmom on April 29, 2008 at 10:10 AM
I didn’t get it either. I guess I’m not devious enough to understand.
Thanks for splainin’.
davidk on April 29, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Does a press pass count as “official”? If not, that may be a reason the press dislikes the idea of only real voters voting.
cacpa on April 29, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Well Ed, I guess you and Allah won’t be able to participate in the Kos polls anymore. What a shame.
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on April 29, 2008 at 10:40 AM
Allow me to revise my prior comment. It is clear that the NYT was discussing how the judges might have ruled in 1966 had they adopted the reasoning of the most conservative three Justices today. However, I was assuming that this speculation was a bit less retarded than it is, i.e., that there was no 24th Amendment in 1966.
There was.
In other words, the NYT screwed up big time.
Xrlq on April 29, 2008 at 10:43 AM
“the record contains no evidence of any such fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history.”
The record should also show that plantiff’s were unable to present to the court any of the “ten of thousands” who would be disenfranchised.
GarandFan on April 29, 2008 at 10:56 AM
I’m a Milwaukee resident. Yesterday, after the Supreme Court decision came down, I wrote my state legislators and asked them to propose a similar law for Wisconsin. Both are Dems, naturally, so I don’t really think they’ll tackle it (especially since Wisconsin has a $500m budget shortfall right now), but maybe some of the Republicans in the state assembly will make it an issue. I urge my fellow Wisconsinites to contact their representatives.
Enrique on April 29, 2008 at 11:21 AM
How about the disenfranchisement The Democratic Party seems obligated to have at its roots as system whereby a candidate seeking the nomination of their party can be selected by an elite group, rather than by its party members.
We all know its hypocritical. We all know they don’t really believe in the complaints they make about the “suppression” of voters by mandating they have a state ID. The real complaint is that they don’t have as much latitude to commit underhanded behavior and the ID issue is a smokescreen.
Weebork on April 29, 2008 at 11:32 AM
factoid:
This does not guarantee a person a right to vote in a federal election. It guarantees representative government but no federal right to vote.
bopbottle on April 29, 2008 at 11:38 AM
I liked this comment, from yesterday’s thread OT. I wonder if the NYT and LAT wold squabble with the European soc**list system/s?
This exchange was also telling:
Limerick is right. Citizenship proof s/b required. For those born here it s/b a birth certificate, and for those naturalized citizens it s/b the naturalization certificate.
Note how the LAT left our their obvious contingent, the illegals. They are soooo worried about “the poor, the elderly, the infirm”.
If only a way could be found for a case to make it to the SCOTUS on U.S. employers, and politicians, enforcing the existing laws.
Entelechy on April 29, 2008 at 11:47 AM
Ok, I think minorities are capable of getting valid identification. The sort required to buy cigarettes, alcohol, cash a check, open a bank account, get a job, get a loan, buy a house, or get and use a credit card.
The NYT and LAT believes otherwise.
And I’m the racist one? Because I believe that minorities can follow simple instructions? It’s not racist to believe that this bar is set too high for minorities to cross?
I always thought anyone who dismissed minorities as too stupid to follow simple instructions, or have a dollar to their name was a racist scumbag. I didn’t realize they were just liberal journalists with a common (incomprehensible) mindset. Who knew that a true racist jack*** and a liberal journalist would be indistinguishable when simply comparing their ideas.
Well yes, ok; a number of us knew that. But I didn’t think the journalists would be quite this obvious making this claim.
gekkobear on April 29, 2008 at 11:49 AM
This decision robs the Democrat party of three of their most important constituencies:
- Illegal aliens
- Felons
- Dead people
kurtzz3 on April 29, 2008 at 11:59 AM
I propose lessening the burden on these folks by putting the ID office in the same building as the Welfare and Unemployment offices….
Ann on April 29, 2008 at 12:02 PM
In Virginia, you have to show a photo ID to buy Sudafed, and just the other day, Walgreen started asking to see a photo ID to use a CREDIT CARD. Are my federal rights being violated? Should I call the ACLU? Oh, yeah, I’m a white, middle class, born again Christian. My rights don’t count.
/sarc
acleaver on April 29, 2008 at 12:19 PM
acleaver on April 29, 2008 at 12:19 PM
You forgot racist.
dmann on April 29, 2008 at 12:49 PM
It’s hysterical to read these arguments because they are identical to ones which were made for poll taxes and literacy tests. “Why should people who can’t read be allowed to vote in America? Why can’t they just pay a small little fee? They’re such small burdens, isn’t it racist to say that the poor and minority populations can’t meet them???”. You also gotta love the elitism too, the incredulousness that there are people in different socio-economic strata who simply don’t have phot-IDs. In highschool I used to work at a video shop in a poor neighborhood where a photo ID was required to open an account. Several people each week were prevented from opening an account who wanted to.
crr6 on April 29, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Liberals always choose to ignore the fact that we are a nation of laws. These laws are created by the will of the majority and reflect the best interpretation of the Constitution. Theoretical arguments and “what if scenarios” are just what they are defined to be, liberals continue to equate theory with reality affording equal weight to both. In a liberal mind, pigs do fly!
dmann on April 29, 2008 at 1:07 PM
These people were well-off enough to own VCRs, though?
James on April 29, 2008 at 1:19 PM
As an Officer on the street, I’ve never met anyone who actually votes, who does NOT have at least a state issued ID card or driver license. People who vote, do other things like drive, pick up their prescriptions at the store, go to the bank, have a credit card, etc.
All these things REQUIRE you have a state issued ID card at the least to prove who you are!
A wino on the street, probably does NOT have one, and has little interest in voting. However the last few “homeless” people I’ve contacted, also had ID cards.
It’s a non-issue and voters should be ID’d like everyone else to prevent fraud.
High Five to the supreme court. Hopefully they rule in the nations favor on the 2nd amendment too.
tx2654 on April 29, 2008 at 1:27 PM
And TVs to watch the videos on. And presumably they could afford to rent the videos at $2-4 a pop or whatever it cost at crr6’s video store. And they were able to get themselves down to the store to open up an account with no problem. But no, no way were they able to go get a photo ID
Missy on April 29, 2008 at 1:37 PM
the ID should cost the voter nothing.
The backup paperwork…well, that’s not the id card is it?
beefytee on April 29, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Or rent one. What’s your point though? Should people be disenfranchised because they don’t have a photo ID?
crr6 on April 29, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Poll taxes weren’t too expensive either. So you feel they should be disenfranchised because of this?
crr6 on April 29, 2008 at 1:49 PM
True enough. Here’s something else for crr6 to chew on: my uncle and grandmother live together in a crackerbox house with mold all over the place. They are too poor to afford cable TV, a VCR (even today!), or anything else that would approach being called a luxury (except his cigarettes, but he’s so addicted he says he’d rather smoke than eat)…they’ve never even seen a DVD. She’s 99 and bedridden…he can’t leave her alone even long enough to go grocery shopping. And yet, he has a current drivers license.
So, crr6, you can go stuff it with your ‘experience’ long ago with not renting videos to the poor who seem to have had a lot more than members of my family currently do…those who don’t have ID just do not want to be ID’d.
James on April 29, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Isn’t that implied? :)
acleaver on April 29, 2008 at 1:58 PM
It takes 2 forms of ID to open a bank account. I have no problem with showing 2 forms of ID to open a bank account. one form of required ID to vote sounds reasonable to me.
D84 on April 29, 2008 at 1:59 PM
I AM against the “national” ID…as long as its not that.
I don’t think there’s any need for and crazy bio-metric retinal scan on these things.
Just a card, one that’s reasonably difficult to counterfeit that says..hey…this guy is beefytee…he’s gonna vote.
beefytee on April 29, 2008 at 2:04 PM
acleaver on April 29, 2008 at 1:58 PM
Just making sure, you know, dot the I and cross the T stuff! ;-)
dmann on April 29, 2008 at 2:08 PM
No. I’m saying that the opponents of ID in the Indiana case have said that many people can’t get ID because they are too poor. The people you held up as examples because they were in a “different socio-economic strata” and the shop was “in a poor neighborhood” seemed to have the financial wherewithal to get ID if they so chose (since they could get TVs, VCRs, and rent videos). Thus I found your anecdote unconvincing.
In any case, “too poor” is a weak argument in the Indiana case, since the Indiana ID is free to low-income voters.
Missy on April 29, 2008 at 2:08 PM
beefytee on April 29, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Resistance is futile you will be assimilated!
dmann on April 29, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Everyone is looking at this simply the wrong way. The population without IDs are elderly and lonely. If someone wants them to vote, they should take them to get a State ID and pay for it for them. And then take them by a grocery store on the way home. It means that this neglected part of our society gets some badly needed social attention, and for a rare occasion, we’ll have a charitable activity which isn’t moronically misguided.
This SC decision could be very good for these leftist defined disenfranchised voters!
thuja on April 29, 2008 at 2:15 PM
I think the NYT and LAT needs some French-cries and a whaaam-burger.
Come on people, this is a no brainer…
Claypigeon on April 29, 2008 at 2:21 PM
I work for a big city welfare department in Califonia. Here’s a little info on “the poor” and ID: All applicants for TANF cash welfare must present proof of identity. If you claim to be the parent of an eligible child, you must provide YOUR identification as well as the child’s birth certificate to show the relationship. The name of the mother appears on the BC and it must match the mother’s ID. All newborns receive a social security number at the hospital and therefore get a SS card. All children must get certain shots in order to remain eligible for welfare and also to be enrolled in school. ID must be shown when you take a child to be vaccinated so everyone knows the child is yours. In most counties, people on General Assistance must provide ID. If they don’t have it, either the county or legal aid will assist them in getting one, but they still have to have the ID.
All this talk about the poor not having ID is bogus. I still expect the Democrats to trot out a 125-year-old black women who was born in a cave in Georgia and therefore has no birth certificate.
sdillard on April 29, 2008 at 2:22 PM
This is a completely irresponsible ruling by the Supreme Court. The problem here is voter identification is needed in order to subvert voter fraud. However the problem should be how does one best prevent voter fraud? Asking for identification is not the best way. It is not the best way if it can be interpreted by every individual State, and to a lesser degree every poll worker, to mean something different, then the term voter identification, not being defined, leaves open the possibility that one can be denied the right to vote based on one States presumed reading of the rule.
For example, what’s to stop a State, or a poll worker, from asking for 3 or 4 forms of identification, all the while acting in the name of combating voter fraud, or is excessive voter identification alright? Furthermore, requiring one to pay for an ID to vote, no matter the subsidy, which does not equal free (unless it does then I abstain from this much) is still an indirect - State mandated - cost in order to enable one’s right to vote.
Injecting minorities, old people, and others into this debate does nothing more then to muddle the law with beyond-the-pale politics. The issues not that minorities don’t have ID’s so they can’t vote. The issue is that the poll worker just asked me for my social security card, birth certificate, bill to my current address, and photo ID so I could vote. The issue is that in order to vote, I have to take time out of my work schedule, pay a due, and wait however long the State decides to take in order to issue me an ID - which if I move may not be valid anywhere else. Even if one could meet all the obligations one would need to, in order to vote, that doesn’t mean all the other citizens of the state, or country, can meet those same obligations; we are country of all the people and not just the majority.
PresidenToor on April 29, 2008 at 2:47 PM
If I’m not mistaken a voter has to be a Citizen of the United States to vote. The problem with the Dems is that showing ID would limit the Illegal Aliens ability to vote. Duh!!
dalec on April 29, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Our electoral process should be converted from a democratic form into something more closely resembling a bloodsport.
Welfare Deathmatch!
LimeyGeek on April 29, 2008 at 3:14 PM
They could also say your toenails are painted the wrong color for this cycles elections, and it’s about as likely.
hindmost on April 29, 2008 at 5:00 PM
Tell that to the Floridian who was denied the right to vote, even after showing 3 forms of identificiation. Or to the quadriplegic who doesn’t, obviously, have a drivers license nor a passport, and has to pay $100 to obtain a State approved ID. Just because you think something is unlikely that doesn’t mean you can prove it so with a quaint analogy.
PresidenToor on April 29, 2008 at 5:14 PM
I was talking to
Not myself…
PresidenToor on April 29, 2008 at 5:15 PM
The arguments against voter ID are just not convincing. Extreme circumstances can be found anywhere. They can be dealt with on an individual basis.
Rose on April 29, 2008 at 6:04 PM
Quite right. There will always exist some risk of ‘edge cases’, but this does not amount to rational justification for abandoning the entire effort.
There is a demonstrable risk of exploitation within our electoral processes. Enforcing a measure of non-repudiation with respect to identity is a pragmatic first step in securing integrity. The vast majority of people will be able to continue voting unencumbered by this requirement. Those that find it challenging have every opportunity to seek a solution. If they are too lazy to do that, they don’t deserve a vote.
LimeyGeek on April 29, 2008 at 6:41 PM
An estimated 20 million Americans do not have a the required photo-ID and more than 20% of black voters in Indiana don’t own one. These are hardly small outliers or “extreme circumstances”. There is not a demonstrable risk of voter fraud as indicated in my earlier posts, it is rare to non-existent in both Indiana and the country as a whole. As to your last sentence…everyone who is a law-abiding, adult U.S. citizen “deserves” a vote. Who are you to say otherwise? If anything we should be undetaking efforts to stimulate, not suppress turnout among the poor.
crr6 on April 29, 2008 at 7:24 PM
It is hard to believe that 20 million Americans do not have photo IDs. If it is true then people in each party need to get out and do some work making sure that these people have what they need. The Democrats have no problem renting buses to get people to the polls, let them rent buses to get people down to the proper agencies to get them IDs.
Rose on April 29, 2008 at 7:45 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »