In opposing laws to require voters to prove their identity, that's the result they are seeking. Oh, they say they are simply against laws that keep eligible voters from voting, but we know what their real motive is -- making sure that their preferred political party can continue to engage in the voter fraud that has allowed it to hold on to power in parts of this country.

Think I'm being unfair with that assessment? If i am, i am being no more unfair than the NY Times itself in today's editorial opposing photo ID for voting.

One of the cornerstones of the Republican PartyÂ’s strategy for winning elections these days is voter suppression, intentionally putting up barriers between eligible voters and the ballot box. The House of Representatives took a shameful step in this direction yesterday, voting largely along party lines for onerous new voter ID requirements. Laws of this kind are unconstitutional, as an array of courts have already held, and profoundly undemocratic. The Senate should not go along with this cynical, un-American electoral strategy.

The bill the House passed yesterday would require people to show photo ID to vote in 2008. Starting in 2010, that photo ID would have to be something like a passport, or an enhanced kind of driverÂ’s license or non-driverÂ’s identification, containing proof of citizenship. This is a level of identification that many Americans simply do not have.

The bill was sold as a means of deterring vote fraud, but that is a phony argument. There is no evidence that a significant number of people are showing up at the polls pretending to be other people, or that a significant number of noncitizens are voting.

Noncitizens, particularly undocumented ones, are so wary of getting into trouble with the law that it is hard to imagine them showing up in any numbers and trying to vote. The real threat of voter fraud on a large scale lies with electronic voting, a threat Congress has refused to do anything about.

Now, if th times wants to make the argument that the law is unnecessary or unwise, more power to them. If they want to argue that the standard places un unreasonable burden, I've got no problem with that. If they want to argue that the documented cases of voter fraud and non-citizen voting are insignificant, feel free to do so.

But this argument is simply dsgusting, and without foundation.

The actual reason for this bill is the political calculus that certain kinds of people — the poor, minorities, disabled people and the elderly — are less likely to have valid ID. They are less likely to have cars, and therefore to have drivers’ licenses. There are ways for nondrivers to get special ID cards, but the bill’s supporters know that many people will not go to the effort if they don’t need them to drive.

If this bill passed the Senate and became law, the electorate would likely become more middle-aged, whiter and richer — and, its sponsors are anticipating, more Republican.

No evidence to support the charge -- simply an assertion. And an utterly shameful one at that.

I'm the local election judge. I run the polling places here in my precinct. I remembeer when folks could walk in with virtually anything to vote -- and remember one guy who had to check the name on the phone bill before signing the voter registry. I remember how much better things got after Texas tightened it voter identification requirements. Now I 'll concede that I think the current bill before Congress is problematic -- because of its potential for establishing a national ID card and database -- but I think that meeting the same requirement for voting that is required to buy groceries witha check at Krogers four blocks away is not an unreasonable step.

Posted by: Greg at 10:28 PM | Comments (29) | Add Comment
Post contains 654 words, total size 4 kb.