Indiana has one of the toughest voter ID laws in the country, and many other states are following in their footsteps. It will be challenged in the Supreme Court in the next few days in what is sure to be a hugely controversial legal battle. Right now, a government-issue photo ID is required to vote in Indiana, but some people think that is too stringent and disenfranchises voters. The SC's verdict will probably be issued this summer, in time to have an effect on the 2008 election. Opponents of voter ID laws -- generally speaking, Democrats -- say such laws disenfranchise elderly and poor voters. Supporters -- generally speaking, Republicans -- say they help eliminate voter fraud. One example of 'disenfranchisement' includes Mary-Jo Criswell, 71, who had her vote thrown out in November after she was told the identification she had used in previous elections — a bank card with a photograph, a utility bill and a phone bill — no longer sufficed. Another example is Valerie Williams, who grabbed her cane [on election day 2006] and walked into the polling station in the lobby of her retirement home to vote, as she has done in at least the last two elections. She was barred from voting because the forms of identification she had always used — a telephone bill, a Social Security letter with her address on it and an expired Indiana driver's license — were no longer valid under the voter ID law, which required a current state-issued photo identification card.
We'll come back to these ladies in a moment, but first let's discuss the greater issue. There are only two sides to this issue:
1. require photo ID to eliminate voter fraud
2. don't require photo ID to allow as many people as possible to vote
Let's weigh the costs of both sides.
Requiring photo ID
Most Americans already have one, whether it's a driver's license, passport, or some other similar document. For those who don't, any legal U.S. citizen can get a government-issue photo ID at very minimal cost. All they have to do is get to a License Bureau. This requirement would at the least make voter fraud far more difficult, and could possibly eliminate a lot -- very close to all -- voter fraud. Call me crazy, but I don't believe dead people, animals, and multiple votes are a 'right'.
No photo ID required
Without a photo ID, we will continue to see more and more problems like we've had in the past few elections. Every election cycle, we see stories about dead people, pets, made-up or fictional names, and multiple votes per person, and that has got to stop. It diminishes the votes of legitimate Americans and makes a mockery of our electoral system.
So, which has the greater cost? A trip to the License Bureau and a few bucks, or mass voter fraud? It's a no-brainer.
Keep in mind one of the key things that results from elections - appointments. Judges at all levels are appointed by Governors and the President. Remember all of those marriage amendment laws that got 60-80% approval that have been struck down by a single federal judge? THAT is the power of appointments - a wacko liberal President can appoint dozens of wacko liberal activist judges that will routinely set aside the will of the people in favor of their own opinion. Apply that same danger to other issues like gun control laws, government taking over private property, abortion, and any other law, and you have the makings of chaos.
It matters, people, and it matters a lot!
Now, back to our two disenfranchised ladies mentioned above.
What was stopping them from getting their own voter ID? If they were turned away at the polls, they could always have gotten a provisional ballot and proved their identity in the next few days and gotten the provisional ballot counted. So what did they do?
Ms. Williams said she was not able to get a ride to the voting office to prove her identity within 10 days as required under the law, and her ballot was discarded. Since last November's election, Ms. Criswell has obtained a copy of her birth certificate but has still not gotten the required photo ID.
My question for them is: why not? If the ability to vote is so critically important to them -- as it must be, for them to take their disenfranchisement lawsuits all the way to the Supreme Court -- why have they not performed the simple steps to get a government-issue photo ID? If you can't find a ride in 10 days, and if you can't be bothered to get your documentation in order over the course of an entire year, you have some major issues that can't be helped by anyone you can't see in the mirror.
These two people prove my point exactly - the only thing preventing the very few people who don't have legal IDs from getting them is...themselves. This is not about disenfranchising voters, it's about preventing dishonest voters from perpetrating a fraud on one of our most precious rights. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only people who are against photo IDs for voting are people who are trying to cheat.
With the current makeup of the current Supreme Court, this decision could go either way, but without the originalist judge appointments made by Bush in the past few years, there's little doubt that the Indiana law would have been struck down. Ironic, isn't it, how circular this is?
There's my two cents.
No comments:
Post a Comment