[Via] John Romano at "Yes, But, However!" at the link. He asks the perplexing question of why do Democrats so fear voter ID? Apparently even unions don't see the requirement of a photo ID as too burdensome.
"A picture is worth a thousand words. According to OpenSecrets.org unions belonging to the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) have donated over $26 million to Democratic candidates and causes since 1990. During that same period, the union gave a paltry $272,311 to the Republican Party.
As you’ll note in the photo below the union requires its own members to produce a photo ID in order to vote. The photo shows a union worker voting earlier today on whether to sanction a new four-year contract with Boeing, clearly the union understands the need for a picture ID in order to help guarantee a clean election:In America, one needs an ID to vote in a union election, buy liquor, drive a car, board an airplane, use a credit card and a slew of other things in our society. Yet, the Democratic party refuses to back the idea of requiring an ID to vote in state and federal elections under any circumstances. A sensible voter ID law that respects the rights of the poor, elderly, and minorities is a great idea. What are Democrats afraid of? You connect the dots.
The most lawless attorney general in American history -- and I'm including the pathetic John Mitchell in the mix -- is visiting Austin, Texas tomorrow.
And guess what? He will be lobbying for vote fraud, supporting a United Nations resolution that is designed to erode the integrity of the ballot box and, ultimately, destroy the United States Constitution.
If you're in the area (Houston included), I'd strongly encourage you to join the counter-rally.
Like former DOJ official J. Christian Adams says, it's high time this national disgrace was impeached.
Hat tip: @EyeOnPolitics
23 comments:
In all honesty, I didn't use an ID for years. I didn't drive up until several months ago, I don't drink, I had no income that would warrant the use of a credit card. I live beneath the poverty line. No ID. And I vote.
First, I registered to vote. When I voted, they had me verify my social security number and date of birth, if I recall, at the polling location. I verbally verified the two facts about myself, and I voted. It probably saved me a hundred dollars to forgo the state ID during this period of my life. Now, a hundred dollars means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. To some, it's a phone, or a camera, or two month's internet access. For me, at the time, it was about a month and a half of living expenses.
Times are hard for people. Especially now. I understand the impulse to justify voter IDs to prevent fraudulent elections. But one should not take this opportunity to use it to justify a poll tax. If you insist on a photo ID with a vote, then there needs to be a system in place to give a photo ID through governmental channels for free. Either default (A special 'voter ID', like a registration card with a picture), or a waiver for the state ID.
And despite all the talk I hear about how this is such a huge deal, I fail to see it anything other than manufactured humdrum. Where is the crisis? Where is the sweeping case of voter fraud that led to this being an issue? There was no AIG here. There are bigger problems in our voting system than this. (Campaign finance, Citizen's United, closed ballots, two-party one-size-fits-all system, gerrymandering, outdated winner-take-all system, electronic ballots that can't just be counted, I could go on.)
I would just like it to be clear, before you risk disenfranchising people by making them choose between a blanket or a vote next winter, why this is such a big deal.
If Democrats are so very concerned about the expense of ID (Rufus) let them make an allowance for those that can't afford said ID. They manage to give away everything else. Let them provide free IDs to those that qualify.
As as aside, where in America does a state id card cost anywhere near $100?
I actually mentioned that.
"Either default (A special 'voter ID', like a registration card with a picture), or a waiver [of the fee] for the state ID."
Although perhaps I could have been more clear.
And Texas. State IDs cost around 25 to establish, and 12? To change a place of residence. I probably changed residences about once a year for about eight years (As a conservative estimate). Had I an ID, and properly kept up with it, that would have been the price - which does not include the price of bus fare to a nearby DPS to make the changes.
But when I keep hearing about these voter IDs, they only ever speak of using existing IDs, as though because most people have them, everyone does.
Every non-felon citizen has a right to vote, regardless of race, religion, creed, educational, or economic status. For better or for worse. That's the founding principle of our democracy, and I see no reason to subvert such a noble ideal.
And my question still stands about why this is such a big deal. The number of people who may show up without an ID thinking they can vote when they can't is a risk of democratic participation. If we risk disenfranchising a single legitimately voting citizen, it should only be in response to a clear and immediate threat to our democratic foundation.
Where is the threat? Where is the proof of a threat of voter fraud that is more of a threat than the fact that general election day doesn't happen on a weekend, isn't a national holiday, or early-voting measures/same-day registrations in many states are being cancelled?
I believe it's a fundamental question that we should ask ourselves. Namely, how much is our democracy worth to us, if we are seriously considering limiting our democratic access?
I understand the reasons in the abstract, in that ONLY citizens should vote, but the specific implementations we're choosing seem to be against the ideals this country is based on.
And I'm not a Democrat. Their party fails to provide the personal freedom I would seek in a party. But I support their efforts against anti-republic legislature.
(Seriously, if this is about voting reform, can we just get rid of the whole concept of an electoral college already? That's far more of an affront to your voting rights than an illegal immigrant population of three whole percentage points of a voting base, and they've historically failed a voting public in the past, on record. More than once.)
Rufus - I'm not sure where you live, but in Wisconsin a state ID is 28.00 and is good for 8 years. You need an ID to cash a check, get a library card, buy alcohol, cigarettes, and in downtown Chicago you need to show your ID just to get into the building. No ID, no access. If you can't afford the 28.00 to get an ID, maybe the democrats can subsidize it as the previous commenter indicated, since they pay for everything else. Voting is a right and a responsibility - at the very least, you should be able to show identification in order to vote. Obtaining identification is not a poll tax. You indicated that 100.00 represented a month and a half of living expenses, which would be roughly 66.00 per month. This is way below the poverty line. I'm not sure how you existed using about 15.00 per week for food, living expenses, etc. but you certainly could have applied for welfare and/or food stamps - and I'm pretty sure you need an ID for that. The idea that there is some vast underclass that cannot produce valid identification is ridiculous. It's a license to steal elections, and will continue to be that way until the fraudulent voters are prosecuted or IDs are required.
Again, I stated Texas was my place of residence. Here, you /may/ need a photo ID to cash a check. I wouldn't know, I've never cashed a check. Only made a deposit and used my ATM. I had a bank account set up using a social security card and a student ID quite a ways back, not that I had many checks to deposit over the years.
I don't smoke, I don't drink, and my library card is similarly old, and probably expired. Social security cards provide a basis for most governmental ID requests, though, and so that's what I used.
The ID in Texas isn't a flat fee, but there is a rather stiff fee for re-issuance with modified address. (When Perry says Texas taxes are low, he doesn't mention the fees. That's how the state collects its money, through county, city, and state fees for everything, average gov't income per person is actually a little high in our state, we just don't like calling them 'taxes')
And I would, again, make the requirement that, if the government is requiring an object that someone has to pay for in order to participate in our democracy, it risks alienating those who cannot afford it.
As far as Welfare/food stamps, applying is possible, but unless you have a lawyer and years (and a stable residence), those typically don't show up. Food stamps are easier, and I thank them for it, but welfare isn't nearly as flexible a social net as people would like to pretend it is. It's easy to fall to the sides or slip through.
It isn't a vast underclass. I never said that those at that level (Which I'm no longer at, at the moment, and haven't been for a while) are a large percentage of the country, but what we're talking about is disenfranchisement. Which is removing a person's ability to participate in the government designed by the people, and for the people.
I have no problem with fraudulent voters being prosecuted. That's not what's on the table, but perhaps it should be. A trial is fair and equitable, and open to all. It's good for democracy. If proof exists that fraudulent activities are occurring, it should
be shown and stopped.
But what's being recommended, that I read, is a hand telling you that you aren't who you say to be because you cannot 'prove' it with a valid photo ID that must be paid for speaks to me of obstructionism, and classism, not a passion for a fair and open democracy.
There's also the very elderly, who often don't have a current driver's license after the previous ones expire.
Here's the other thing. I travel a lot for work, so I always arrange for an absentee ballot to be sent to me. I'm not showing photo ID, yet I'm able to vote.
And yeah, I feel for what Rufus says here. You know what a pain it is to deal with the Department of Motor Vehicles. Now imagine that you're doing it solely for the privilege to vote. Many people won't go through that, and that's the idea of the legislation.
BTW, the "stiff fee" Texas charges to change the address on the state ID is.... 11.00. http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLicense/dlfees.htm
If you really care about not disenfranchising voters, you should be in favor of presenting an ID when you vote. Voter fraud is so pervasive in Chicago and Milwaukee that it is a national joke - requiring an ID would go a long way to ensure that the elections are fair and legal.
@Rufus D, you are the 1% (Occupy Rufus?). This is 2011, I'm sorry, your justifications about not having a photo ID in this day and age are ludicrous. And to whine about no sweeping cases of voter fraud? Voting is such a fundamental process in our society, therefore it is plain common sense to actually prove who you are that is casting said vote. And the easiest way to prove that? What 99% of people already have: a photo ID.
I truly feel for your situation if you haven't had a need or the means to obtain a photo ID at this point, but you are a rare case and to be blunt, I think you need to join the real world at some point soon.
I can't believe the tortured logic that you folks are applying here.
The integrity of the ballot box is paramount to the American system of government.
To argue against some form of identification, when there is no evidence that anyone other than an ACORN rabble-rouser has ever been so disenfranchised, is to argue for tyranny.
Let's face it: Democrats have a history of vote fraud. From the ACORN registration/absentee ballot scams (hundreds of thousands of votes, former ACORN employee Anita MonCrief being the resident expert), to the rosters of the dead, the "instant registration and vote" process in Wisconsin that gives Illinois voters a chance to vote twice, promoting votes for illegal aliens, etc. --- we know for a fact that Democrats promote vote fraud.
---p.s.
"You know what a pain it is to deal with the Department of Motor Vehicles. Now imagine that you're doing it solely for the privilege..." of getting your health care.
---
@Rufus, what a crock of crap. I can not even deposit a check into the bank with out a state I.D. or Driver's LIcense. This is the most full of crap excuse for not having an I.D. at the polls. The cost of a state ID in CO is $10.
In the meantime, we have every illegal, SEIU, ACORN scumbags taking over the polls. How do you think that senile Harry Reid got re-elected. By ACORN and SEIU employees of the casinos in Las Vegas. That's how.
It's so sad to see supposed American citizens prmoting a tyrannical form of stealing elections. But beings $100 is one half of your living expenses per month. Perhaps you are living over in Cuba, where they have already stolen the elections.
"BTW, the "stiff fee" Texas charges to change the address on the state ID is.... 11.00."
I stated this previously. I believe I accounted it was 12.00.
Thank you for the correction, it's been a while since I changed it. When you change addresses frequently, it adds up quickly. 11.00 dollars was a large sum for me at the time, and remains so for many others.
You say Voters being required to have an ID would slow fraud. I believe you may be correct. I still haven't seen sweeping evidence of a cause, aside from anecdotal evidence. If there IS substantial fraud, and proof of such, please file the appropriate work to initiate a case against the offenders in court.
I don't see anything, however, stopping fraud, other than a strong evidence trail (paper ballots) with proper registrations and oversight. Or are you saying that people who are fraudulent aren't able to manipulate votes around an ID requirement, if they desire? (Fake IDs? Electronic fraud?)
I am for fair elections, I don't see this as being more beneficial than hurtful. Particularly when I can see other options (Again, paper trails, accountability and oversight, prosecution of guilty, transparency, provisions for special elections).
--Next--
"@Rufus D, you are the 1% (Occupy Rufus?). This is 2011, I'm sorry, your justifications about not having a photo ID in this day and age are ludicrous. And to whine about no sweeping cases of voter fraud?"
I have a photo ID now, but many whom I knew and know still do not. It simply doesn't fall within their budget. Ask the next homeless person you pass how much $28 matters to him or her.
I'm simply stating that there are other significant issues which face our electoral process right now than a requirement of voter IDs. I listed: "Campaign finance, Citizen's United, closed ballots, two-party one-size-fits-all system, gerrymandering, outdated winner-take-all system, electronic ballots that can't just be counted, I could go on." Further are the day of election being a weekday, and not a holiday, and electoral colleges.
Honestly, the best way to beat voter fraud is to increase interest in voting. We have one of the lowest voter turnout percentages (for a legitimate democracy) in the world. Something which imposing additional restrictions doesn't help.
--NEXT--
"The integrity of the ballot box is paramount to the American system of government.
To argue against some form of identification, when there is no evidence that anyone other than an ACORN rabble-rouser has ever been so disenfranchised, is to argue for tyranny."
The integrity of the ballot box is paramount, yes. This includes both stopping fraud, and facilitation of legitimate votes.
Integrity is not maintained unless both principles are supported.
"@Rufus, what a crock of crap. I can not even deposit a check into the bank with out a state I.D. or Driver's License. This is the most full of crap excuse for not having an I.D. at the polls. The cost of a state ID in CO is $10."
Language aside, and I'm happy for your less-expensive Colorado ID, I was banking in my state for quite a while (though, granted, not often) without a State ID or Driver's License. ID was required for the initial establishment of the account, but afterwards, my plastic sufficed.
I'm sorry you believe Harry Reid stole your elections. If you have proof of such allegations, I suggest you to speak with a lawyer about prosecution. If you have no proof, but merely strong suspicions, I suggest you vote for increased transparency, or a more able-to-be-tracked system for your ballot counts, so that verification can eliminate fraud.
The shot about living in Cuba saddens me, because it intimates that you somehow have a hard time believing that Americans are living at that level.
@Rufus
How/where did you gain access to a computer and the internet?
Rufus, you are a lying piece of crap. You can write well, yet say you have/ had no money and are/ were very poor. Nobody that can at least spell their own name is that poor. You are a leftist shill just trying to push the left's agenda of no voter ID along. Now hurry back to whatever leftist POS site you normally write for and tell them how you suckered a bunch of right wingers, will you?
The reason there is no evident voter fraud available is because they can't be identified!
Well, duh. Voter ID laws make it harder for them to commit voter fraud. This is ultimately what they care about.
Rufus, Rufus, Rufus...
You have internet access.
So do we.
Texas has the entire ID process available online.
They don't agree w/you.
Now I wonder who's correct? "Rufus" or the State of Texas?
Heh.
The proof of voter fraud is in Milwaukee, with its 110% voter turnout.
Surely you're as angry at the goonions for enforcing Voter ID as well?
I'd hate to think your rage is politically selective...
-jjg
DailyScoff.com
Assuming the well-crafted narrative from Rufus is true, I pose a question:
How would you feel if you showed up to vote and were informed that you already have voted? Hasn't happened to you? It has happened to a family member of mine in the Great State of Illinois. All that person needed to do was verify DOB and address and cast a vote on behalf of someone else.
Too bad there was no requirement for photo ID - my family member has one proving that he is who he says he is.
Second question: does Media Matters have your narrative filed under "R" for Rufus or under "C" for c'mon man?
Some states with voter ID laws will indeed pay for the ID for someone who can't afford one. So that reason can't be used at least in some states for a reason to be against the voter law.
This is how crazy things have become:
Soon a citizen will need to prove that he or she has health insurance. On the hand, people who are not citizens are allowed to vote without having to prove anything...or even be compelled to verify their citizenship if they are stopped by the police.
It's a mixed up crazy world we live in...and you can thank the Democratic Party for that.
http://www.mayank110.blogspot.com/ please have a look ..and do comment!!
I have a couple of neighbors who don't vote...I would have no problem walking in and use their name (as if I am them) and vote (a couple hrs apart of course). They live right down the road from me and I know their addresses...so all in all I could vote 3 times. For Me and my 2 neighbors...that's why need voter ID! This is a no brainer...
If you care about voting, it's not that often or that hard to earn enough for an ID. If you are reporting your income, you get EIC. And who told you people were so spotless and fair that they would never do up a fraud.
Fraud is proven history. Latin Americans scoff and scorn such a stupid idea as not requiring ID to vote.
Post a Comment