Last week, First Lady Michelle Obama sounded a battle cry at a Congressional Black Caucus awards dinner when she said protecting the right to vote is the nation’s most important civil rights issue. If that were true, that would mean there no credible civil rights concerns in the country. What Obama was talking about was the effort by Democrats to prevent the implementation of laws requiring voters to present a photo ID when casting their ballots. The common sense measure has the support of the overwhelming majority of Americans. They understand that cheating is baked into the DNA of our political parties and see nothing unreasonable about requiring someone to do the same thing as when they wish to board a plane, a train, open a bank account or buy a beer or a cigarette: prove they are who they say there are. Mrs. Obama’s attempt to demagogue this issue is the backdrop for false liberal arguments that voter ID legislation is the modern version of the Jim Crow laws of the segregation era. Those claims are currently being adjudicated in Pennsylvania, where a judge has until Tuesday to decide whether the state’s voter ID law should be thrown out.
In August, Commonwealth Court Judge Robert E. Simpson, Jr. threw out the challenge when he said that while he was sympathetic to those who claimed they had difficulty acquiring a photo ID, there was no proof of disenfranchisement. That ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court, which has now kicked the case back to him and hearings were again held this week to determine whether the state is acting appropriately. Though the state has loosened the already lenient requirements to get a state card, the judge hinted that he might give in to pressure from liberal groups and grant an injunction to block its implementation. If so, it will undermine attempts to ensure voter integrity.
Conspicuous by her absence from the second round in front of Judge Simpson was the lead plaintiff from the initial hearings back during the summer. At that time, opponents of voter ID heralded the participation in their suit of 93-year-old Viviette Applewhite, a woman who marched with Martin Luther King Jr. Ms. Applewhite didn’t have a birth certificate or a drivers license and might have been prevented from voting. But as I wrote last month, Ms. Applewhite subsequently undermined the voter ID challenge by strolling into a Department of Motor Vehicles office, explaining her problem and emerging a short while later proudly displaying her new state photo ID as a somewhat disappointed reporter from the Philadelphia Inquirer looked on. The Inquirer had hoped to document the difficulties of getting an ID, but they had instead proved just how easy it was.
Ms. Applewhite incurred the wrath of her erstwhile leftist sympathizers for ditching them but she has been replaced with others with their own exceptional stories to engage the judge’s sympathy. No doubt, they have also been instructed to on no account use some common sense and do as Applewhite did and resolve their problem without the help of liberal lawyers with a political axe to grind.
At stake here is a the principle that voters ought to be able to verify they are who they say there as well as being residents of the district where they seek to cast their ballots, not to mention being citizens. As an elderly African-American like Ms. Applewhite proved, minorities and senior citizens are fully capable of dealing with this challenge and the state has shown it is ready to bend over backwards to help anyone who really wants to vote.
The vast majority of Americans, including most members of minority groups, have photo IDs. Those who don’t can get them free of charge from the state. Those without them can cast provisional ballots that will not be invalidated unless they cannot subsequently prove their identity. The idea that this uncomplicated law is a new version of “Jim Crow” drains that term of any meaning. Liberals have redefined “voting rights” to mean something different from what it did half a century ago. Then it meant depriving people of the right to vote on the basis of race. Now it means defending the right of any person who can’t prove their identities or citizenship to vote illegally. Mrs. Obama and the left have turned a sacred cause into a farce.
You go to a liquor store and the clerk asks for your identification. nHe: Miss, I'd like to see your ID. nShe: I don't have an ID. nHe: Well, you need an ID to buy whiskey. nShe: No I don't. I can vote without an ID, I can select who runs this state without an ID and who runs this county without an ID. I don't need an ID. nHe: Well the law says you do. nShe: Now listen to me. If I can select who makes the laws without needing an ID—who holds the political office of the land without having an ID—doesn't it make sense to you that I don't need an ID for for this? nHe: Well. nShe: Does your boss show you his ID? Of course not. I'm the boss of the politicians and I don't show them an ID. Why would I show you and ID? nHe: Here's your liquor. Have a good day. n nFar fetched, maybe. Have a good day.
Our vote is not like a beer. Our vote has been paid for; in blood.
The right to vote has been paid for, not the right to vote twice in the same election, neither the right to vote if you're not a citizen, nor the right to vote after the polls have closed, nor before they open, nor the right to vote after the election's over, nor before it's begun, nor the right to vote if you sleep through the election, nor in a drunken stupor, nor at gunpoint, nor without an ID.
Exactly – which is why the integrity of the process matters. Good grief.
Yah, in a land with ten million and counting illegal immigrants, it's determining the "our" and "we" that is at issue. And none of "them" has paid precious blood for anything. And those whose blood has watered the bitter ground in which freedom is painfully cultivated did not shed that blood so that the dead could vote in Chicago.
I'm confused. I though gay marriage was the most pressing civil right of our era.
Arizona has had voter ID for years and there has been no disenfranchisment. None of the ill effects, except that fraudulent voters now have to use absentee ballots, as a result.
An honest vote could cost some demos an election. Demos bought their way IN by bought votes and manufactured votes.
"Left Turns Voting Rights Into a Farce" – OK, I'm game. Mr. Tobin, did you get this from automatic headline creating software? "Left Turns Environmentalism Into a Farce"; "Left Turns War On Terror Into a Farce". nThe Left turns everything into a farce.
Well, they have.
Mr. Tobin – can you please point out where this alleged rampant voter fraud is coming from and when and where it's ever occurred to the extent which would require the immediate implementation of such laws right here, right now, in this election, just months after the law was passed? Coincidentally, rushed through a Republican state legislature in a swing state, in a presidential election year? n nAnd in the case of Pennsylvania, as a Pennsylvania resident (and as an inner city resident of one of the poorest districts in the country, Kensington in Philadelphia), I'd also remind you that not any ole' photo ID will do. n nNo, sir. We need an official photo ID issued by the Commonwealth (that's 'The State' to all of you non-Pennsylvanians), and btw – I thought youze were against Big Government and whatnot?. n nOne already needs to provide such documents in order to register to vote in the first place; and there's also a safeguard against fraud in making sure that one's signature matches the voter's signature on the voter rolls, everywhere I've ever voted. This isn't enough? n nDo you have any evidence whatsoever that there are enough people out there who are voting enough times to swing elections, in multiple precincts, over a period of maybe twelve hours tops, who are also skilled enough to be able to somehow (psychically?) match the signatures on record for the registered voters they also somehow (psychically, too, I'm sure) knew wouldn't show up for this election? And would also have to know their names, and be able to reasonably fit their description – like for example, I doubt a 30-something Vietnamese woman could pass for a voter named Josef Krzyzewski with a 1937 birth date. n nPlease sir, if you have evidence to back up this so-called "common sense" law in Pennsylvania, present it. Otherwise, as someone who generally agrees with most of Commentary's current stances on foreign affairs, I hope you'll have the integrity to admit you're wrong, and that you were just buying in to the Republican Party line despite the fact that it's clearly BS to anyone who cares to look at the facts.
Committing election fraud is so easy in most States that it's nearly impossible to detect, let alone prove, so your request for statistics is disingenuous. Voting infractions, in other words, are being treated like jaywalking. How many convictions for jaywalking are there, do you suppose? Does that mean that jaywalking is rare? As with voter fraud, jaywalking can sometimes have very serious consequences. Ironically, the statistics that you demand will never be available until the election laws are TAKEN SERIOUSLY. n nOne example: in Pennsylvania, I believe, as in many States, the names of those registered voters who have NOT voted are updated hourly over the course of Election Day and are publicly available at the polling place (as a matter of election law). If you were a fraud-minded sort, simply come in early, note who has not voted yet (who you also may have reason to suspect will not be voting), and vote in his name. Once your vote is in the hopper, there's no way to get it back. When the person whose identity has been purloined comes in, IF he does, he can vote, too. Guess how? By showing identification! And can you further guess what sort of identification that will be? That's right, the photo-ID sort, because it's the sort of thing that most non-fraud-minded citizens carry with them ALL THE TIME. Oh, and lest we forget the whole point, you may then vote in your own name. n nExample two: The "signature" requirement you tout as an iron-clad assurance against fraud is anything but, as well it must fail to be. Not only is the subjectivity of judgment involved in a signature challenge, in which two out of four poll workers must agree, so great that reproducing a signature is nearly useless as a reliable measure of identity, but a person's signature has been shown to vary considerably over the course of as little as a day. Studies have shown that even where a challenge is made, simply pleading an injury to hand or elbow or shoulder is enough to get your ballot accepted 90% of the time; and, happily for a fraudster, he need not worry that at any point he will be asked for a picture ID to settle the matter. n nAnd really, that complaint of yours about Conservatives contradicting themselves in some bizarre way because we are content with "the Government" issuing photographic identification is tiresome. I know you imagine you're being devastatingly ironic, but it is in fact mostly in your imagination. State legislatures—and no other bodies—are given "sole responsibility" to establish the qualifications for who is and who is not a valid elector for ALL elections, State and Federal, by the US Constitution. Challenges to this power based on issues of "convenience" or "difficulty," a condition that is ALWAYS debatable, are for that very reason insufficient to abridge State power in this area, as the US Supreme Court has ruled many, many times. So Conservatives may rest easy in their consciences, and you especially needn't fret on their behalf. But what about you and others like you? Why not simply get with the program and get yourself a proper ID? n nA better question, in my opinion, is why any RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN would be unable to obtain an ORDINARY photo ID so as to be able to participate in an election the date and time of which he may reliably inform himself about YEARS IN ADVANCE?
It is up to those who make extraordinary claims to produce evidence backing up same. I'm simply not going to accept a claim that voting fraud is so easy to commit in so many states that it's impossible to document, so ergo we must throw more roadblocks up in the way of . The conclusion does not follow, nor do I still see any evidence whatsoever that your claim is true. And again, in order to register to vote in the first place, one must produce multiple documents proving identity and residence. n nAs for your first example, then you should be able to produce evidence that tens of thousands of people are voting twice in this manner, and that this is as common as you suggest. This should be easily accessible public information, no? Wouldn't newspapers regularly report on these types of stories? Wouldn't tens of thousands of citizens be up in arms all across the nation if others were voting in their name, too? Wouldn't their stories be out there somewhere? n nAnd that's not even to mention the fact that such 'name-shopping' would surely arouse the suspicion of poll workers, don't you think? Bringing your second example here, sure I guess one could claim that an arm injury affects their current signature. But how would one reasonably claim that they forgot their name and address, so they had to flip through the book for three minutes to find it? n nSorry, not buying either of those evidence-free hypotheticals as an excuse to throw up more roadblocks in the way of exercising our right to vote. n nI'll grant your point on my claim about conservatives, that was out of line and I was being unnecessarily facetious. n nAs for 'being with the program,' I do have a Pennsylvania driver's license so I'll be fine come November 6th. Believe it or not, though, millions of people across America do not drive or have driver's licenses for one reason or another; many people, especially seniors, do not have official birth certificates and can not easily obtain them due to bureaucratic obstacles in certain states and in certain instances; a good number of people may not even be aware of our new law in the first place and / or may believe their ID will be acceptable when it isn't; a particular poll worker may be really bad at his or her job or having a bad day come Election Day; etc etc. n nAnd this law wasn't made known 'years in advance.' More like months. The real question here in Pennsylvania, in particular, is why the rush to implement this law right here, right now, and that it MUST be implemented for this particular election? Why is the commonwealth wasting millions of taxpayer dollars on court challenges to rush this into place so soon? n nI can't answer your question about why one wouldn't have 'proper' ID, as I always do myself, but that's not the point. Head on over to YouTube for evening news broadcasts or do a search of the Philadelphia-area papers online to see the problems and mass confusion this is causing us here.
"As for your first example, then you should be able to produce evidence that tens of thousands of people are voting twice in this manner, and that this is as common as you suggest." n nNot so fast, if you don't mind. You offer a straw-man argument. Switching "tens of thousands" of votes is quite unnecessary if the aim is to influence an election illegally. The Minnesota US Senate election of 2008 was decided by 312 votes. In 2000, George W. Bush won Florida by—what was it?—540 votes. Minnesota (est. 2011 population 5,350,000) has approximately 90 counties and more than a thousand polling places. Florida's estimated 2011 population was 19 million, with several thousand polling places. I happen to believe, having reviewed ALL the evidence, that Al Franken's "victory" is a fraud that stinks to high heaven. A lot of Democrats obviously feel similarly about Florida. But my opinion (and theirs) is really quite unimportant. (FYI: In Minnesota, as many as 15 people with no more ID than the noses on their faces may vote unchallenged if a single person "vouches" for their right to vote.) Franken's turned out to be the 60th vote necessary to pass the Affordable Care Act. Do the math. Switching ONE VOTE(!) PER PRECINCT can decide an important election. Lately, within the past decade, you must have noticed that the number of close elections (defined as a 2000-vote-or-fewer margin of victory) has increased dramatically all across the country, from Washington State to Virginia. n nGiven the relatively modest effort required to defraud poll workers, your attitude towards the abundantly documented loopholes in voter-identification requirements across the nation is disturbingly complacent (quite possibly for self-serving reasons, I fear). So I'll repeat once more, because it seems to have escaped your notice, your understanding, or both, that so long as the rules by which voters are identified at the polling place are so lax, then just so long will THERE NEVER BE THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU DEMAND. The argument here (at Contentions, I mean) is not between opposing counsels-at-law. I do not need to present "evidence," as if you or I, in these feeble postings, could do justice to the immense amount of election data that have been collected over the years. Your peremptory demand is simply not to be taken seriously. Therefore, my "evidence-free hypotheticals," as you describe them, are all that is required here so long as they are reasonable. (I think they are eminently reasonable.) In demanding such "evidence," particularly in the context of so flawed a verification system, you sound to me more than a little like a shyster lawyer. (Remember "If the glove does not fit, you must acquit," do you?) n nMy suspicions also follow as a logical matter. Consider the proposition: "The looser are standards for an honest election, the less honest the election will be." True, that is a conclusion of induction as opposed to deduction, which is to say, it follows on experience rather than logical necessity. Consequently, the only standard it must meet to merit acceptance is this: "Is it a reasonable induction?" Somehow I think it is more than reasonable. n nBut really, in one sense, all of this is beside the point when, as I believe, YOU are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. You seem to think—or at least to imply; otherwise I cannot understand at all your objection to photo-ID laws—that if such laws prevent someone who is otherwise qualified to vote from voting then such laws are unconstitutional—or something equally unpleasant. I would respond that such an assertion, if I have accurately collated your position, is an example of colossal question begging, namely, of assuming as true what is in fact in controversy. A person who has not bothered to procure an ID of the sort that a duly-elected legislature has deemed necessary is ipso facto NOT qualified to vote. In fact, "otherwise" may go knit if "otherwise" is displeased with such a law. (FYI: "Otherwise" is encouraged to elect another legislature.) As the United States Constitution plainly says, a State is the SOLE arbiter of who is and who is not a qualified voter. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled (repeatedly) that to set at naught so clear and unambiguous a constitutionally delegated authority requires a "compelling" rationale. A State, by default, need offer only a "rational basis" for such a law. Are you seriously arguing that, in 2012, requiring a certified photograph to demonstrate identity is "irrational"? I submit that your own confession that you "can't answer [my] question about why one wouldn't have 'proper' ID" is answer enough, which is "No!" n nQED.
Considering so few people can heft themselves off the couch, dust the Cheetos off their chest and shamble off to go vote at all, it's a non issue. The US needs to have compulsory voting. Then let's see the Al Sharptons of the world whine and scream how that's unfair too.