Green Room

Why demonize Voter ID policies?

posted at 10:20 am on August 20, 2012 by

Democrats oppose Voter ID laws because they want to steal elections.

That’s a scurrilous charge, isn’t it? Democrats would protest that their opposition to Voter ID laws is motivated not by base intentions but by the noble desire to ensure that certain populations not be denied access to the vote.

Why should we believe them? Many of them certainly don’t believe that Republicans who support Voter ID laws are anything but malevolently motivated. To the folks at places like Moveon.org, Voter ID laws are but one part of a massive racist voter suppression scheme perpetrated by evil conservatives, funded by the evilest of them all, the Koch Brothers.

So, the next time the hard left and their willing sheep start bleating about “voter suppression,” why shouldn’t those on the right start talking about liberals’ desire to block Voter ID initiatives because liberals really just want to make it easier to “steal elections”?

Maybe one of the reasons liberals would rather discuss alleged motivations instead of the actual policy is because Voter ID programs are supported by a vast majority of Americans. According to a July Washington Post poll nearly three-quarters of respondents believe one should have to show ID to vote.

With poll numbers like those, of course Voter ID opponents would rather make this a debate about “suppression” and “racism.” Nobody likes a racist, after all, so they easily win that fake argument, while they lose the one on the policy itself.

Some reasonable observations, however, explain the strong support for Voter ID:

Most Americans understand that when you engage in serious activities, you are required to show proof that you are who you say you are.

Your bank, for example, might ask for ID even when you’re making a deposit into your own account.

Unions  ask for proof of union membership before allowing members to vote.

And government offices (even ones fighting Voter ID laws in the courts) ask for ID before allowing just anyone to come on the premises.

Americans confront on a daily basis the need for proof of ID, and they understand why it’s important.

They also know how little is required of them when they walk into a polling place. In most places, they’re just asked to give their name.

Surely it has crossed their minds how easy it would be for a less-than-altruistic individual to abuse that level of public trust. They don’t need to watch James O’Keefe videos to understand this on a visceral level. They know, perhaps also on a gut level, how easy it is for people caught up in the passion of the moment—zealously supporting a candidate, for example—to rationalize away bad behavior in service of a perceived “common good.”

And one doesn’t have to be a news junkie to realize that some elections are close, and that sometimes recounts take months with the result being less than satisfactory for one side or the other.

In short, Americans know that how clean an election is just might tilt the outcome.

But opponents of these laws say Voter ID is a solution in search of a problem, since voter fraud is so low in the U.S.

Voter fraud is real, and it can swing a close election in some districts. What might not be so real, however, is the alleged disenfranchisement of voters due to Voter ID laws.

Recently, Commonwealth Court Judge Robert Judge Simpson refused to grant an injunction to plaintiffs seeking to block Pennsylvania’s new Voter ID law. In his ruling, Judge Simpson wrote that he didn’t find credible the studies of a university professor testifying for the plaintiffs, due to “oversampling; post-stratification weighting…and overarching design for ‘eligible’ voters as opposed to ‘registered’ voters.” Judge Simpson also “had doubts about the survey execution: response rate; and timing.”  The judge specifically “rejected Petitioners attempts to inflate the numbers (percent of registered voters without ID).”

Before opponents dismiss Judge Simpson as a partisan, it should be noted that he also blocked Republicans’ attempts to thwart ACORN voter registration work back in 2008.

Most Americans won’t read Judge Simpson’s ruling, but they don’t need to in order to understand these common sense ideas:

  • It’s important to show proof of identity for serious transactions.
  • Close elections in the past demonstrate how important it is to ensure clean elections, and
  • Sometimes well-intentioned partisans might cross the line because of their zeal.

Voter ID opponents can continue to question supporters’ motives, but that tactic does nothing to advance the legitimate discussion of ways to ensure clean elections. So the next time Voter ID debates turn to talk of voter suppression, ask why opponents are so disinterested in clean elections. If motivation is the topic and not the policy itself, such a question is fair game.

____

Libby Sternberg is a novelist.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Those most likely to be disenfranchised are also those who most likely need a photo ID in their normal everyday lives, but instead of helping the those folks, the emphasis is always placed on the “well-being” of the politicians. Instead of helping those in need and making a lasting bond in the process of aiding the necessity of photo ID, they would rather push them to curb.

J_Crater on August 20, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Voter ID would disenfranchise dead voters. Do you have any idea how difficult it is for a dead person to rise up out of the grave and get an ID? And vampires — they don’t even show up on film, so a photo ID would be blank.

The Rogue Tomato on August 20, 2012 at 11:24 AM

If you want more support from the Left for Voter ID laws, then start rumors that the GOP is plotting to ‘stuff the ballot box’ and to use early-voting to help elect Republicans, where Voter-ID laws are weak or non-existant.

Jack Slade on August 20, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Is it racist to require an ID to buy a gun?
Is it racist to require an ID to cash a check?
Is it racist to require an ID to use a credit card?
Is it racist to require an ID to apply for welfare?
Is it racist to require an ID to buy liquor?
Is it racist to require an ID enter a political rally?
Is it racist to require an ID meet with the President?

Why are the above more important than voting?

LouisianaLightning on August 20, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Not to mention, any voter fraud is disenfranchising the rest of us. I think that should be thrown back at them.

Donald Draper on August 20, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Most Americans might not read Judge Simpson’s ruling, but they might read this.

As a Pennsylvania resident, this totally great story made me LOL.

PatriotGal2257 on August 20, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Not one of them complained about presenting a ID to get their kids a free laptop for school. NOT ONE.

All required an ID and a $35 deposit unless your kid got ‘free’ lunch.

orbitalair on August 20, 2012 at 10:56 PM


HotAir — Politics, Culture, Media, 2017, Breaking News from a conservative viewpoint
Top Pick

“what happened that day was emblematic of a deeply troubling trend among progressives…”

“The jobs are still leaving. Nothing has stopped.”

Bad vendor. Bad! No cookie!

“The Corps is just starting to grapple with the issues the court has identified.”

“So you want me to sing my praises, is that what you’re saying?”

Why would we possibly want that?

“I mean he sold our country to The Russians.”

I could think of someone else you might want to ask about…

“You can ask a hundred people what hate speech is and you get a thousand different answers”

Trump: I never made any recordings of Comey

Allahpundit Jun 22, 2017 2:01 PM

Bluff.

Hackers stole private data from election databases

John Sexton Jun 22, 2017 1:21 PM

“90,000 records stolen by Russian state actors contained drivers license numbers”

Failure to protect the city

Big man on the Middle Eastern campus

Biased Americans see media as biased.

Tough times down on the liberal ranch

Will Nancy Pelosi survive this latest Dem disaster?

Andrew Malcolm Jun 22, 2017 8:41 AM

Eat quick, before it’s gone.

Slow your roll, boss

“I’m bothered by the lack of emerging evidence…”

FIrst look at the Senate health bill

John Sexton Jun 21, 2017 9:21 PM

“the Senate bill would go farther than the House version in its approach to cutting Medicaid spending.”

Divide and conquer?

“If we do nothing, more companies will back out and more people will lose coverage.”

You know, I may have cracked the case for you, guys

“They’re still running against her and still winning races.”

“…the suspect is from Quebec and has a Canadian passport.”

When the Left lost their way on immigration

Jazz Shaw Jun 21, 2017 2:41 PM

It wasn’t all that long ago, really

“I personally watched some of these students go up to Chief Brown, right up to her face, and call her all kinds of names, cursing at her.”

Did the Queen “nix” a Trump visit to London?

Jazz Shaw Jun 21, 2017 12:41 PM

More like wishful thinking on the American left

Sometimes it’s hard. This was the hardest part

Did the polls get the Handel/Ossoff race wrong?

Allahpundit Jun 21, 2017 11:21 AM

Nah.

Physician, heal thyself

Maybe we’ll stay home and watch.