Great news: UN Human Rights Council to investigate American voter-ID laws

posted at 10:25 am on March 15, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Stop me if you’ve heard this joke before.  A Saudi, a Cuban, and an American political group walks into a room — and the American political group asks them to tell the US to be more fair about its voting practices.  Haven’t heard this one?  You may get a chance to see it in action if you go to Geneva and watch the UN Human Rights Council and the NAACP at work:


The United Nations Human Rights Council is investigating the issue of American election laws at its gathering on minority rights in Geneva, Switzerland.. This, despite the fact that some members of the council have only in the past several years allowed women to vote, and one member, Saudi Arabia, still bars women from the voting booth completely.

Officials from the NAACP are presenting their case against U.S. voter ID laws, arguing to the international diplomats that the requirements disenfranchise voters and suppress the minority vote.

Eight states have passed voter ID laws in the past year, voter ID proposals are pending in 32 states and the Obama administration has recently moved to block South Carolina and Texas from enacting their voter ID measures.

“This really is a tactic that undercuts the growth of your democracy,” said Hillary Shelton, the NAACP’s senior vice president for advocacy, about voter photo ID requirements.

Hey, who would know more about the “growth of democracy” than the member states of the UNHRC?  For instance, Saudi Arabia doesn’t allow women to vote at all.  Cuba and China are one-party dictatorships.  The UNHRC is a monument to the fatuity of moral relativism applied to global democracy; half of the member states should be in the dock of a human-rights tribunal rather than running it.

And this is the NAACP’s model of justice? Appealing to the democratic instincts of China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia?  That’s the biggest joke.  Or perhaps not, as John Hinderaker points out, citing one of the NAACP’s claims:

“The civil rights group says one, Kemba Smith Pradia, was convicted of a drug-related offense and is concerned that if she moves back to Virginia from the Midwest, state law will block her voting because of her record, even though she was granted clemency by President Bill Clinton.”

So this is the best the NAACP can do: Kemba Smith Pradia lives in the Midwest and has a criminal conviction on her record. Can she vote? Yes, because the state where she lives either doesn’t bar felons from voting, or doesn’t have a voter ID law, so she can vote fraudulently. But she worries that if she should move to Virginia, she will have to present identification. In that event, if Virginia law doesn’t allow felons to vote, she won’t be able to get away with breaking the law! Is that a human rights violation, or what?

Bear in mind that a few of the countries to whom the NAACP is appealing only have allowed women to vote at all in the past few years, and Saudi Arabia doesn’t allow it even now (or women to drive, or to walk by themselves, and so on). Many more of them don’t allow for meaningful political opposition from women or anyone else.

If the NAACP wants to argue against voter ID requirements, they should make their case to American voters, not an international panel of thugs and kleptocrats.  We are a self-governing nation, not a fiefdom of the UN — and thank the Lord for that.  The NAACP wants to make its arguments to some of the most oppressive states in the world because (a) the NAACP knows it has a losing case here in the US, and (b) they just want to embarrass Americans into knuckling under to their demands, mainly because their screeches of “raaaaaaaacism” have lost all their impact here at home.  They believe that international scorn from dictators like the Castro brothers will enhance their efforts to oppose voter ID laws, which only proves that the NAACP has a serious disconnect from reality.

Michael Ramirez points out the absurdity in the opposition to laws that require proof of identity before casting votes:

I’ll make the NAACP a deal: when the federal government stops requiring me to produce government-issued identification to purchase firearms — a right explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution — then I’ll stop supporting state requirements to produce government-issued identification at the polling place.

Also, be sure to check out Ramirez’ terrific collection of his works: Everyone Has the Right to My Opinion, which covers the entire breadth of Ramirez’ career, and it gives fascinating look at political history.  Read my review here, and watch my interviews with Ramirez here and here.  And don’t forget to check out the entire Investors.com site, which has now incorporated all of the former IBD Editorials, while individual investors still exist.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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 3

I can’t get effective cold medicine without an ID.

Why do leftists hate integrity at the ballot box?

tom daschle concerned on March 15, 2012 at 10:27 AM

This ride is making me nauseous, I’d like to get off now.

LoganSix on March 15, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Just another assault on our Constitutional Republic.

rbj on March 15, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Clearly requiring ID while purchasing effective cold medicine is racist.

tom daschle concerned on March 15, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Sweet. Why are we apart of the UN?

dmn1972 on March 15, 2012 at 10:29 AM

I, for one, welcome our new UN Overlords.

Matticus Finch on March 15, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Just wait until Barack loses…

SouthernGent on March 15, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Ed, you forgot that you also have to produce a state ID if you are picking up a prescription… for example birth control pills.

jeffn21 on March 15, 2012 at 10:30 AM

LOL … love Ramirez’s volt.

Can we please, please, please defund the UN now? Please?

Lost in Jersey on March 15, 2012 at 10:30 AM

We have to realize that it’s very hard for dead people to vote if we require an ID. Come on people how about a little sensitivity?

cajunpatriot on March 15, 2012 at 10:30 AM

If I were president the first thing I would do is stop all funding to the Useless Nations.

dmn1972 on March 15, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Can I say the NAACP is beclowning themselves without sounding like a clownist?

I actually welcome this farce. And I hope that the UNHRC issues a ruling declaring these laws racist and antidemocratic. Let the stench that is the UN wash over America.

NotCoach on March 15, 2012 at 10:31 AM

I’ll make the NAACP a deal: when the federal government stops requiring me to produce government-issued identification to purchase firearms — a right explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution — then I’ll stop supporting state requirements to produce government-issued identification at the polling place.

I’ll make you a better deal Ed.

De-fund the UN.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on March 15, 2012 at 10:31 AM

Every day I see or read something else that makes me think I live in Bizarro world.

We are a self-governing nation, not a fiefdom of the UN

Yeah. For now. We won’t be able to say that much longer if Obama is re-elected.

crazy_legs on March 15, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Democratic Party: Furthering the War on Voting Integrity.

BuckeyeSam on March 15, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Can’t be any worse than Holder, plus it creates jobs. We should be thankful. The U.N. Human Rights Commission will always make things right…escpecially in matters regarding Israel.

a capella on March 15, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Yeah. For now. We won’t be able to say that much longer if Obama is re-elected.

crazy_legs on March 15, 2012 at 10:32 AM

I’ve been scared to death that if he loses he will take out on the American People and sign some crazy treaty, like that crazy global warming thing or giving the UN authority over us. We of course would fight it saying that the President does not have that kind of power, but it would be another fight we don’t need to make.

jeffn21 on March 15, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Only under Obama, I hope. I would dearly like to think that this sort of thing would not be dared under a competent, pro-American administration.

The height of the UN’s ridiculousness has been achieved. Stick a fork in it, it’s done. Time to withdraw. Thank you for your time and efforts; you’ve done a lot of good things, some of which might even be worth preserving. But this body, this institution as a whole is finished. Call it a day. Good bye.

ss396 on March 15, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Why are Democrats so worried that their voters won’t get through the voter ID requirement?

Oh yeah, the Democrat constituents are losers without ID’s!

Nemesis of Jihad on March 15, 2012 at 10:34 AM

I live in Virginia, was convicted of a felony (selling an ounce of weed in college) back in 1999 when I was 18. I’m waiting for Gov. McDonnell to “yay” or “nay” my application for restoration of civil rights.

It is stupid that I can’t vote without the Gov’s “OK” a minimum of 10 years after I complete my sentence. Really, really stupid. Especially since I could move to 35+ other states in the Union and be able to vote right away.

Spliff Menendez on March 15, 2012 at 10:35 AM

I can’t get effective cold medicine without an ID.

Why do leftists hate integrity at the ballot box?

tom daschle concerned on March 15, 2012 at 10:27 AM

Because just as they don’t trust YOU to choose the “correct” food for your child’s lunch they don’t trust voters to choose the “correct” (ie: socialist) candidate.

Every time I am forced to fork over ID to buy beer or anything else I ALWAYS remark that it’s a damn shame that I can’t buy X without showing ID, but you don’t have to do that to vote!

wildcat72 on March 15, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Why are Democrats so worried that their voters won’t get through the voter ID requirement?

Oh yeah, the Democrat constituents are losers without ID’s!

Nemesis of Jihad on March 15, 2012 at 10:34 AM

And many times have been dead for at least 100 years.

jeffn21 on March 15, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Since we have motor voter registration (enacted when dems controlled Texas), one of the excuses the left uses to say why minorities don’t have driver’s licenses is they don’t want to be harrassed about their outstanding warrants. No really. That’s a ctually a defense they cite.

DanMan on March 15, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Word from Pyongyang is that the Norks are furious sleazy Eric Holder hasn’t been faster on the draw, to properly encourage vote maximum fraud.

Even Chavez is incensed… wondering if Ojo Grandes is too lazy vacationing and fund-raising to steal an election fair and square.

viking01 on March 15, 2012 at 10:38 AM

This is so far beyond parody that I think the left is actually slowing going insane on an institutional level. They maxed out the race card in 2008 and have been getting more and more shrill since then.

The 2010 election really set them so far off course that they can call Romney a “right-wing extremist” with a straight face.

Mord on March 15, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Spliff Menendez on March 15, 2012 at 10:35 AM

What does this have to do with identification requirements to vote?

NotCoach on March 15, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Since we have motor voter registration (enacted when dems controlled Texas), one of the excuses the left uses to say why minorities don’t have driver’s licenses is they don’t want to be harrassed about their outstanding warrants. No really. That’s a ctually a defense they cite.

DanMan on March 15, 2012 at 10:36 AM

Heh. They aren’t lying though, so you’ve got to give them credit for their stupidity cloaked in honesty.

Spliff Menendez on March 15, 2012 at 10:38 AM

The NAACP is voluntarily giving up what little credibility it has left. They haven’t managed to come up with any serious arguments against voter ID requirements, so now they’re getting into bed with the UN? Pathetic.

Dee2008 on March 15, 2012 at 10:39 AM

The absurdity of this reminds me of the Obama Flag deal from yesterday: You don’t know whether to be outraged or amused.

Bitter Clinger on March 15, 2012 at 10:39 AM

The fact that this is before the UN Human Rights Council is a joke – but then again, the UN Human Rights Council is a joke itself.

As a conservative, I’m OK with shooting down voter ID laws. There’s a difference between using a driver’s license to drive or buy beer and voting. The first two are ancillary privileges of a free society. Voting is one the most fundamental, cherished rights of Americans. So I am weary of any attempts to place restrictions on the exercise of the right.

Why not just set it up so that voters who don’t present a picture ID cast provisional ballots that aren’t counted unless the winner’s margin is less than the number of provisional ballots cast for the runner-ups. At that point, you can investigate the provisional ballots more in depth.

Thoughts?

JDF123 on March 15, 2012 at 10:39 AM

I’ve been scared to death that if he loses he will take out on the American People and sign some crazy treaty,

jeffn21 on March 15, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Thankfully, treaties have to be ratified by the Senate and I think we could still count on even the hapless republican leadership in the senate to oppose giving up US Sovereignty.

Lost in Jersey on March 15, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Last I checked, didn’t the Supreme Court already say Voter ID laws were constitutional?

Zaggs on March 15, 2012 at 10:40 AM

What does this have to do with identification requirements to vote?

NotCoach on March 15, 2012 at 10:38 AM

It doesn’t, but the girl in the story what complaining about Virginia so I thought I’d share my own story.

But if it makes you happy:

There should be identifications requirements to vote.

Spliff Menendez on March 15, 2012 at 10:40 AM

You also need ID to get a job these days due to background check necessitated by the Patriot Act. Usually two forms of ID unless you have a passport which many Americans don’t have.

islandman78 on March 15, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Chicago-style voting: “Weekend at Bernie’s”

Bitter Clinger on March 15, 2012 at 10:41 AM

NAACP: Nobodies Advancing Anti-Constitutional Propaganda

Archivarix on March 15, 2012 at 10:41 AM

I’ll bet $100 that if you went to the NAACP HQ building, you’d have to show a photo ID.

Zaggs on March 15, 2012 at 10:41 AM

The requirement to show ID while using my credit card is anti-human, racist, bigoted, and homophobic.

tom daschle concerned on March 15, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Last I checked, didn’t the Supreme Court already say Voter ID laws were constitutional?

Zaggs on March 15, 2012 at 10:40 AM

The Regime does not regard the Constitution in high standing, so you have to factor that in.

Spliff Menendez on March 15, 2012 at 10:42 AM

You also need ID to get a job these days due to background check necessitated by the Patriot Act. Usually two forms of ID unless you have a passport which many Americans don’t have.

islandman78 on March 15, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Most Democrat voters don’t need a job, unless you count the sort provided for a few dollars in no-rape OWS tents.

Archivarix on March 15, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Again, it’s a mystery why Democrats are against insuring that legal voters aren’t disenfranchised.

Good Lt on March 15, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Can we please, please, please defund the UN now? Please?

Lost in Jersey on March 15, 2012 at 10:30 AM

I would also recommend moving the building and its contents about 200 miles to the east.

LoganSix on March 15, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Grant more funding to the these UN groups on the condition they reform their member qualifications. Meanwhile, accuse the NAACP of racism, and flip the entire argument on its head.

Blacksoda on March 15, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Since Mexico is not allowed to head up this investigation, the whole process is a sham.

/

Left Coast Right Mind on March 15, 2012 at 10:44 AM

So why isn’t the NAACP railing against onerous CCW laws? The high fees are almost certainly disenfranchising minorities who are unable to defend themselves against crime in their neighborhood.

John Deaux on March 15, 2012 at 10:45 AM

It doesn’t, but the girl in the story what complaining about Virginia so I thought I’d share my own story.

Spliff Menendez on March 15, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Oh, so were sharing stories about Virginia. I have an aunt and two cousins in Virginia. I’ve been there twice to attend my cousin’s graduations. I did the tourist thing and went to Yorktown. I failed to make it down there for my cousin’s recent wedding though.

NotCoach on March 15, 2012 at 10:46 AM

I love it when lefties attempt to portray conservatives as stupid at the same time they are so worried that their voters can’t get ID’s. Just another example of the dead weight dependents that make up the Democrat voters.

Nemesis of Jihad on March 15, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Again, it’s a mystery why Democrats are against insuring that legal voters aren’t disenfranchised.

Good Lt on March 15, 2012 at 10:42 AM

Come on now. For Democrats, elections are an inconvenient nuisance until the totalitarian state is achieved. Until then, they need all the illegal votes they can get.

Bitter Clinger on March 15, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Thankfully, treaties have to be ratified by the Senate and I think we could still count on even the hapless republican leadership in the senate to oppose giving up US Sovereignty.

Lost in Jersey on March 15, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Obama approving a treaty without the Senate is just as “legal” as his recent recess appointments to the NLRB when the Senate wasn’t in recess…

Don’t think he won’t do it.

wildcat72 on March 15, 2012 at 10:46 AM

The first two are ancillary privileges of a free society. Voting is one the most fundamental, cherished rights of Americans. So I am weary of any attempts to place restrictions on the exercise of the right.

Why not just set it up so that voters who don’t present a picture ID cast provisional ballots that aren’t counted unless the winner’s margin is less than the number of provisional ballots cast for the runner-ups. At that point, you can investigate the provisional ballots more in depth.

Thoughts?

JDF123 on March 15, 2012 at 10:39 AM

So if voting is the most fundamental of rights, shouldn’t it be paramount to ensure that my vote is not disenfranchised by others fraudulently voting? Your argument is completely backwards.

As for the provisional ballot idea, it is a breeding ground for significant corruption. It would take a bad system and make it exponentially worse. Why would we go through all those added procedures (which are corruptible at each and every step) when securing the vote in the first place would make it unnecessary?

Lost in Jersey on March 15, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Want to get liberals in favor of voter ID? Vote in their district and use their name to vote. That’ll get them to change their mind pretty quick.

lorien1973 on March 15, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Just so that everyone knows:

International treaties do NOT trump the US Constitution. Ever. The Court most clearly articulated this in Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957).

The UN can’t force the US to do anything in violation of its Constitution. It certainly cannot decide what individual states can require for voting.

The only thing that the NAACP wants to do is to say to the world that America is an evil place.

Resist We Much on March 15, 2012 at 10:47 AM

the requirements disenfranchise voters and suppress the minority vote.

NAACP racists think minorities are too stupid to figure out how to get a photo ID?

forest on March 15, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Isn’t drug use in Saudi Arabia a possible death penalty…. Can’t wait to see what they say about the ability to vote of a drug using woman.

aniptofar on March 15, 2012 at 10:47 AM

Are you kidding me?! Did you know that in India (yes, India!) even beggars have picture Voter I.D.? No joke! To say that requiring photo voter I.D. is racist and discriminatory is one of the most offensive things I’ve heard.

MISFern on March 15, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Come on now. For Democrats, elections are an inconvenient nuisance until the totalitarian state is achieved. Until then, they need all the illegal votes they can get.

Bitter Clinger on March 15, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Yep, and one of their own governors was even brazen enough to suggest suspending elections altogether, to deal with this current “crisis” that is largely of democrat creation…

10 years (or less) of rule by this current crop of democrats is about all it will take before elections are completely done away with. I’m not convinced that if Obama gets re-elected that he will leave office in 2017 either.

wildcat72 on March 15, 2012 at 10:49 AM

Thankfully, treaties have to be ratified by the Senate and I think we could still count on even the hapless republican leadership in the senate to oppose giving up US Sovereignty.

Lost in Jersey on March 15, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Yes, but it wouldn’t be the first time that the President just ignored the constitution and then the House didn’t call him on it. In the House’s defense though I think they only have so many hours in their tough 3 day work week. So every overreach by the feds just goes to the bottom of the list. They are still working on Fast and Furious! That was 20 unconstitutional moves ago.

jeffn21 on March 15, 2012 at 10:50 AM

How many nations require registration and a valid ID to vote?

Is the US the only nation on earth that places such a “burden” on its citizens?

coldwarrior on March 15, 2012 at 10:50 AM

Ramirez cartoon forgot you need photo id to apply for food stamps too.

Also, the UN may want to check Mexican Voter Law, they also require a photo ID.

Schwalbe Me-262 on March 15, 2012 at 10:51 AM

I live in Virginia, was convicted of a felony (selling an ounce of weed in college) back in 1999 when I was 18. I’m waiting for Gov. McDonnell to “yay” or “nay” my application for restoration of civil rights.

It is stupid that I can’t vote without the Gov’s “OK” a minimum of 10 years after I complete my sentence. Really, really stupid. Especially since I could move to 35+ other states in the Union and be able to vote right away.

Spliff Menendez on March 15, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Actions have consequences.

If it’s important to you, either work to overturn Virginia’s law requiring you to petition the governor to vote if you’ve had a clean record for five years or move to a state that allows felons convicted of selling drugs full restoration of rights after their sentence is completed.

Wendya on March 15, 2012 at 10:51 AM

Voting is one the most fundamental, cherished rights of Americans.

JDF123 on March 15, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Yes it is, and you should have to demonstrate that you’re an American in good standing before exercising that right. Many more elections where we see blatant cheating going on and Americans will stop “cherishing” the right to vote. We risk becoming one of those oppressive states that the NAACP is appealing to.

BTW, your idea about provisional ballots…aren’t they already doing that?

Dee2008 on March 15, 2012 at 10:51 AM

I would also recommend moving the building and its contents about 200 miles to the east.

LoganSix on March 15, 2012 at 10:42 AM

As long as it’s occupied when they move it.

Obama approving a treaty without the Senate is just as “legal” as his recent recess appointments to the NLRB when the Senate wasn’t in recess…

Don’t think he won’t do it.

wildcat72 on March 15, 2012 at 10:46 AM

I didn’t say he wouldn’t think about it, but I do think he wouldn’t actually go for it. Our system has not completely collapsed … yet. My tinfoil is still in it’s box in the drawer, neatly rolled.

Lost in Jersey on March 15, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Something is missing here in the comments.

Oh yeah!

Where are libfreeordie, liberalforlife, and all the other libs to tell us that voter ID laws are racist?

VibrioCocci on March 15, 2012 at 10:52 AM

I think we should make this an election issue. Let’s force the Democrats to defend this policy of theirs, where you need an ID for everything, except voting, but not having one doesn’t disenfranchise people. The Republicans should tell the world, we’re trying to help these poor disadvantaged people be able to do more in the world.

bflat879 on March 15, 2012 at 10:52 AM

F___ the UN.

Defund them and tell them to get the he11 off our lawn.

UltimateBob on March 15, 2012 at 10:53 AM

I’ll make the NAACP a deal: when the federal government stops requiring me to produce government-issued identification to purchase firearms — a right explicitly guaranteed in the Constitution — then I’ll stop supporting state requirements to produce government-issued identification at the polling place.

This is a gross misunderstanding of the Constitution and our rights. We have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms (not firearms specifically, but all arms) – in other words, we have the right to self-defense. It does not say that we have the right to purchase firearms without identification.

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 10:55 AM

More Georgie Soros agiprop!

Jayrae on March 15, 2012 at 10:56 AM

So if voting is the most fundamental of rights, shouldn’t it be paramount to ensure that my vote is not disenfranchised by others fraudulently voting? Your argument is completely backwards.

As for the provisional ballot idea, it is a breeding ground for significant corruption. It would take a bad system and make it exponentially worse. Why would we go through all those added procedures (which are corruptible at each and every step) when securing the vote in the first place would make it unnecessary?

Lost in Jersey on March 15, 2012 at 10:47 AM

The argument isn’t backwards. I think you have it turned around. You assume anyone who doesn’t have a photo ID to vote is therefore incapable of getting one because they are ineligible to vote. Therefore, you become disenfranchised by voter fraud. But while that may be true some of the time, it’s not a universal proposition. I would agree that not having a photo ID is moronic for some American citizens, but I would err on letting them cast provisional, or potential ballots, rather than absolutely refusing them the right to vote.

And I don’t think provisional ballots are that complex. They don’t even get considered unless the vote is extremely close assuming the vast majority of voters have photo IDs.

JDF123 on March 15, 2012 at 10:57 AM

The dead are registered to vote, is there any evidence that dead voters have cast ballots? The problem is the slow nature with which voters are pushed off the rolls. Which is why voter ID laws are a partisan sham. Almost none of the voter ID laws deal with the source of potential voter fraud, fraudulent registration. If you are fraudulently registered and you bring an ID you would still be able to vote in an election.

And if someone is going through so elaborate a voting fraud conspiracy that they are trying to vote for a dead person who is registered why wouldn’t they be willing/able to get an ID with that person’s name. Are polling volunteers given the technology to see through fake IDs? There are almost no reported instances of voter fraud, i.e. when people voted who were not eligible, that would have been solved by voter ID laws. So we know what these laws are actually about.

libfreeordie on March 15, 2012 at 10:58 AM

I doubt there is any country in here in Europe, except UK, where photo ID is not an absolute requirement for voting. In fact in most countries here, some kind of photo identification is mandatory. In my country, the mandatory id card comes with automatic secure e-id which means that I can transact all business with the government, including voting, online. It is very convenient.

When I was at high school some 20 years ago, the fact that US didn’t require photo ID for voting was brought up by the usual leftist suspects as evidence of backwardness and lack of basic rights in the US. So based on that I suppose this commission will admonish US for not having photo ID requirements in all states.

kittysaidwoof on March 15, 2012 at 10:58 AM

Anyone seen surveys showing voting ID requirements in other countries? Might make for an imteresting comparison and yet another opportunity to mock the NAACP.

slickwillie2001 on March 15, 2012 at 10:58 AM

If this was a Monday night sitcom I would watch. But these folks are doing this with a straight face (note the traces of Kool-Aid near the corner of the mouth).

And exactly how many people did the NAACP send and what will the total bill for the trip be?

sdbatboy on March 15, 2012 at 10:58 AM

BTW, your idea about provisional ballots…aren’t they already doing that?

Dee2008 on March 15, 2012 at 10:51 AM

I believe Michigan (my home state) has been using a form of it for a while. I’m not sure on the details, though.

JDF123 on March 15, 2012 at 10:59 AM

Voting is one the most fundamental, cherished rights of Americans.

Thoughts?

JDF123 on March 15, 2012 at 10:39 AM

Yes. There is no right to vote. It doesn’t exist.

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Yes it is,

Dee2008 on March 15, 2012 at 10:51 AM

No, it is not.

It’s baffling how many people do not know this.

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 11:01 AM

Spliff Menendez on March 15, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Oh Sh*t , Oh Dear, Spliff

DevilsPrinciple on March 15, 2012 at 11:01 AM

libfreeordie on March 15, 2012 at 10:58 AM

How exactly do people become fraudulently registered?

NotCoach on March 15, 2012 at 11:01 AM

This is a gross misunderstanding of the Constitution and our rights. We have an inalienable right to keep and bear arms (not firearms specifically, but all arms) – in other words, we have the right to self-defense. It does not say that we have the right to purchase firearms without identification.

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 10:55 AM

If it meant what you say it means then the word “inalienable” would not apply. IE: inability to produce ID would “alienate” you from your right to acquire arms so you can keep and bear them.

Of course, that word isn’t used in context with voting in the Constitution either.

wildcat72 on March 15, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Just get rid of the UN. This is yet the most egregious, despicable action taken by fellow Americans–and I use that term lightly with respect to the NAACP which seems to care only about ITS own viewpoints. This is none of the UN’s effing business. Get lost, alphabet entities!

stukinIL4now on March 15, 2012 at 11:02 AM

I say so what? The UN has no power to change anything.

Ellis on March 15, 2012 at 11:02 AM

The dead are registered to vote, is there any evidence that dead voters have cast ballots?

libfreeordie on March 15, 2012 at 10:58 AM

“Woodwick Street was quiet — with a few residents working in their yards and adding to post-storm brush piles at the curb — when Texas Watchdog visited on a recent Saturday to try to find Harris County voter Linda K. Hill.

“I’m sorry, but she passed on two years ago,” said a mustached man wearing a Dallas Cowboys baseball cap and driving a motorized chair down the street. He was Linda Hill’s husband, Henderson Hill Jr.

Linda Kay Hill, a homemaker and Louisiana native, died Aug. 2, 2006, of a heart attack, her husband recalled, and is buried at Houston Memorial Gardens in Pearland. But Harris County voter records indicate she –- or someone using her identity –- cast a ballot in the November election that year. Linda Hill of Woodwick Street voted in person on Election Day, records show.”

http://www.texaswatchdog.org/2008/10/dead-voters-still-registered-in-harris-county/

Resist We Much on March 15, 2012 at 11:03 AM

You assume anyone who doesn’t have a photo ID to vote is therefore incapable of getting one because they are ineligible to vote.

JDF123 on March 15, 2012 at 10:57 AM

I don’t assume that at all. Actually I would argue that the only people incapable of easily obtaining photo ID are those who are, in fact, ineligible to vote. For any legal citizen of this country, a photo ID is a simple thing to obtain.

I can also tell you from experience that here in Jersey, there are a LOT of people with photo ID’s who are not eligible to vote so it can’t be that difficult.

This is a participatory society. In order to exercise your right to vote, you should need to prove you have that right.

Lost in Jersey on March 15, 2012 at 11:04 AM

Maybe we should do like Iraq and have ink on your thumb instead. :-)

JeffinSac on March 15, 2012 at 11:04 AM

It does not say that we have the right to purchase firearms without identification.

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 10:55 AM

And where in the constitution does it grant the government the authority to require you to show identification in order to purchase firearms?

Wendya on March 15, 2012 at 11:05 AM

This is a joke, right?

phoebe1 on March 15, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Yes. There is no right to vote. It doesn’t exist.

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Dante is actually correct.

There is no constitutionally-protected right to vote, per se. The Court has recognised the fundamentality of participation in state “elections on an equal basis with other citizens in the jurisdiction,” Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 336 (1972), even though “the right to vote, per se, is not a constitutionally protected right.” San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 35 (1973).

Resist We Much on March 15, 2012 at 11:06 AM

I say so what? The UN has no power to change anything.

Ellis on March 15, 2012 at 11:02 AM

All this regime needs is some sort of pretext…

affenhauer on March 15, 2012 at 11:07 AM

If it meant what you say it means then the word “inalienable” would not apply. IE: inability to produce ID would “alienate” you from your right to acquire arms so you can keep and bear them.

Of course, that word isn’t used in context with voting in the Constitution either.

wildcat72 on March 15, 2012 at 11:02 AM

Huh?

One can purchase firearms and other arms without producing an id. It is only in some instances in which one has to provide identification (just to be clear, I am opposed to having to provide id, but that’s not the point. The point is the misunderstanding and misreading of the Constitution). Not having an id does not “alienate” you from this right.

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 11:07 AM

The UN is a joke.

Hopefully the next president will start working to defund it when he takes office. It’s going to be a very busy day. (Repealing Obamacare, getting rid of Obama’s EPA regulations, approving the keystone pipeline…)

This charade would make a good SNL skit-a bunch of men in middle eastern garb, stoning women, while decrying the terrible injustice of voter photo ID. Doubt that will happen, though.

talkingpoints on March 15, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Offered a job in a New York Bar

She eventually asked me why guys like me don’t do anything.

I met a girl in New York who quit writing about the UN since it was making her want to install a right wing dictator in the US just to toss them out and preserve our basic values and exceptionalism.

She eventually asked me why guys like me don’t do anything.

The poor thing was a center lefty when she first started covering them and was shocked to see the real evil running so many nations whom we treat as equals. Worse, nobody in our media treats the subject with any seriousness or a moral or logical vantage point.

If you make a real comparison, you appreciate that our culture is such a wonderful gift and treasure, she said.

I agreed.

We don’t use the UN like we should. It is an educational institution. You know….like a zoo, I told her.

Don’t bother with the emails, I have been called a racist before.

IlikedAUH2O on March 15, 2012 at 11:09 AM

I’ve always maintained that if the left ever had to produce actual living, breathing witnesses in support of their “theory” about voter ID’s being discriminatory; we’d be laughing our asses off for days.

A convicted felon? And an obvious OUT OF STATE COLLEGE student?

You can’t write better material than this.

GarandFan on March 15, 2012 at 11:10 AM

The UN is a joke.

Hopefully the next president will start working to defundwithdrawfrom it when he takes office. It’s going to be a very busy day. (Repealing Obamacare, getting rid of Obama’sthe EPA regulations, approving the keystone pipeline…)

talkingpoints on March 15, 2012 at 11:08 AM

better still…

affenhauer on March 15, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Resist We Much on March 15, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Yes, voting is a privilege, not a right.

Even without court rulings (the most recent was Bush v. Gore), it should be obvious to anyone that the right doesn’t exist, nor did our Founders intend for everyone to have voting privileges. They did not create a democracy. The states are well within their rights to limit voting privileges however they wish, except in the case of federal elections they cannot limit privileges based on gender, race, and certain ages, for example.

Dante on March 15, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Can’t wait to see what they say about the ability to vote of a drug using woman.

aniptofar on March 15, 2012 at 10:47 AM

HUH?

timberline on March 15, 2012 at 11:11 AM

This is the group that just gave the Gaddafi human rights record the thumbs up, right?

I wouldn’t expect anything better for Democrat trash of 2012.

MNHawk on March 15, 2012 at 11:11 AM

“The civil rights group says one, Kemba Smith Pradia, was convicted of a drug-related offense and is concerned that if she moves back to Virginia from the Midwest, state law will block her voting because of her record, even though she was granted clemency by President Bill Clinton.”

I was going to post this comment at Powerline but didn’t because of their log-in system, so I was hoping it would come up here.

Kemba Smith was granted clemency — specifically a commutation to time served — for her 1995 sentence of 24.5 yrs and 5 yrs of supervised release, effective immediately on Dec 22, 2000. I’m pretty sure that the 5 yrs supervised release stayed in effect.

Technically, her concern that she may not be able to vote in VA is valid. Virginia does not have automatic restoration of voting rights for felons. It does, however, have a procedure for applying for restoration of that rights, among others, which has been in place since 2008. One can apply 5 yrs after the sentence is completed, which means she could have applied December 23, 2010, a caveat being that she’s not been convicted of another felony in the interim, nor has current charges pending nor been convicted of DWI in the last 5 yrs, or I suppose otherwise lying or being deceitful elsewhere on the application, too.

Restoration is at the discretion of the Governor after a complete background check.

A comment. I wonder if this is the first she’s been advocating for rights restoration and I’d be interested in what she’s been saying if she has. I won’t hold the use of the clemency argument in this story against her as it might just be either the reporter or the NAACP. The argument is duplicitous though. The clemency is irrelevant and inserting it is just playing the sympathy card. The conviction still stands. Clinton just let her out of prison early. But if she’s been marketing her plight using this argument, she’s not being straight with the public and that should be mark against her standing in the community, something akin to denying responsibility for her crime, which she seems to like to sell as a mistake, which is, I suppose, okay on it’s own. She said she fell in the wrong people at that time.

I also wonder if she has tried to apply. Yeah, she’d need to move there and there is no guarantee but she seems to think her rights are important, just that her having to work for them is not important and she ought to get them for free in VA. Her crimes, btw, were committed in VA. Anyway, her “concern” would indicate she hasn’t, so it seems to me she wants to skip a step (or two) by going to the UN instead. If it’s true she wants to skip a step, she is showing a disregard for the society she wants to live in, another strike against her. If she was enticed by the NAACP to go this route, then it appears she has a habit of falling in with the wrong people and making “mistakes”.

Like I said, I’d be interested in what she’s been saying about this on her own since, with this info I’ve gleaned from a quick internet search, she doesn’t appear to have a case in which people ought to be very sympathetic.

Dusty on March 15, 2012 at 11:14 AM

I don’t assume that at all. Actually I would argue that the only people incapable of easily obtaining photo ID are those who are, in fact, ineligible to vote. For any legal citizen of this country, a photo ID is a simple thing to obtain.

I can also tell you from experience that here in Jersey, there are a LOT of people with photo ID’s who are not eligible to vote so it can’t be that difficult.

This is a participatory society. In order to exercise your right to vote, you should need to prove you have that right.

Lost in Jersey on March 15, 2012 at 11:04 AM

My argument was never about the ease of obtaining a photo ID. Of course it is incredibly easy and makes many aspects of life much more streamlined.

I’m wary, however, of your second contention. I don’t like the idea of having the “prove” to the government that you’re eligible to exercise a right such as this. I’d much rather have the government prove that I am ineligible to exercise a right, even if it is an inconvenience. Notwithstanding that, if it were completely impractical to have an alternative to photo ID laws, I would agree that they were practically necessary. But I just don’t think that is so.

JDF123 on March 15, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3