Skip to comments.Voter ID Laws: Why Democrats Are Scared
Posted on 04/22/2013 3:25:51 PM PDT by Maelstorm
States are implementing laws requiring voters to produce photo identification (ID). Democrats are fighting these initiatives claiming voter disenfranchisement. Are Democrats supporting voter fraud?
Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, a Republican, signed into law a requirement for voters to provide a photo ID in order to vote. The law provides free photo ID cards to registered voters and requires notifying voters of the requirement prior to the next election. The law takes into account the need to prevent voter fraud and provides state voters with free photo IDs if they do not already possess one.
While the law seems to be reasonable and fair, Democrats are decrying it as unfair to senior citizens, the poor, and minorities. The Democrats argue that voter photo ID laws prevent these groups from exercising their right to vote. Arkansas Governor Mike Beebe recently vetoed a similar law in his state. Interestingly, he stated that the cost ($300,000) and the increased bureaucracy were unnecessary.
Democratic opposition to these laws is not only at the state level. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) is also stating that voter ID laws are "unnecessary, expensive, and intrusive" and should not be supported. The DNC also adds the young, disabled voters, veterans, and military members to the group of voters having difficulties at the polls. Since military members and veterans already have photo ID cards, they should not be affected by voter ID laws.
The Democrats opposition to preventing voter fraud is interesting. The DNC states that "numerous non-partisan organizations have debunked widespread voter fraud" allegations. Unfortunately, voter registration is plagued with errors and voter fraud has occurred in Iowa. This one incident is not necessarily enough indict Democrats as contributing to voter fraud but it does provide insight into Democrat support for other issues.
The National Voter Registration Act (Motor Voter) of 1993 was spearheaded by liberal activists and supported by the Democrats. The act required states to allow voter registration when a "qualifying" voter applied for or renewed a driver's license or applied for social services. It also allowed voters to register through the mail. Unfortunately, the act did not allow in person applications to be challenged or require identification for mail in applications.
Since the Democrats are supporting drivers licenses for illegal immigrants in Maryland, Illinois, and Minnesota, the main question is whether these states can have voter photo ID laws to prevent fraudulent voting. The Motor Voter Act doesn't require proof of citizenship to sign up for voter registration and this may allow illegal immigrants to vote in elections.
The Democrats are supporting immigration reform but are doing so in an ambiguous way. While the DNC states that the immigrants should learn English, pay penalties, and "get right" for their illegal immigration, the DNC refuses to make a statement regarding voter fraud from illegal immigrants.
The ultimate conclusion is that Democrats want to use loopholes in the Motor Voter Act to swell their ranks. By supporting illegal immigrants, Democrats want to increase their support based on quid pro quo rather than on ideological merits. Illegal immigrants can count on Democrats to support them and, in return, illegals can support the Democrats no matter what the issue.
Since the DNC refuses to pay for President Obamas nominating convention, it is difficult for a rational person to believe that the DNCs pontifications are altruistic. Instead, Americans should be skeptical of the DNC and their "welcoming" of illegal immigrants. Voter ID laws would help reduce voter fraud and help citizens mold the nation based on their views. Instead, the DNC is supporting the tried and true Chicago rule of "vote early and often" especially if you are an illegal.
But, to vote in a U.S. election...
So is requiring the same for buying a gun, but libs do not care about that. They also hope most people won't put two and two together and ask why Dems oppose photo ID for voters when they are pushing for it to be required for a gun purchase. The "media" will be sure and keep these two items as separate as possible.
If background checks on gun buyers are a good idea, why not background checks on voters?
Democrats and quisling rino republicans make me want to puke!
No immigration reform of the type being currently advocated and no voting unless you have ID.
If you are not a US citizen, you do not get to vote in our elections, period.
That's not the way the Demorats look at it.
Why would they be scared when they know the GOP is trying to rescue them with amnesty?
Yes, I know that.
My deceased blue-collar, steel-worker Grandfather old-time democrat would spit on them for disrespecting his legal method of immigrating here.
To read dem concerns about something being too expensive, or that military personnel might have difficulty voting (or getting their votes counted) is laughable.
I was thinking this EXACT same thing. To keep and bear arms is a constitutional right - while voting is NOT a constitutional right. So which one SHOULD require comprehensive background checks?
Voters should be verified. Rand Paul actually addresses this in his plan but still not strongly enough for me. I think both the voter and employer verification process are absolutely essential parts of any immigration reform. If we do not demand that be the case then we are going to find ourselves with an even bigger problem at the polls. Also we need a self sufficiency requirement that is enforced before anyone can become a citizen. Its supposed to be that way already but from what I’ve heard its hardly enforced.
Is this true? Someone who is breaking the law and is here illegally can apply and get a drivers license?!? This country is lost.
After the Gang of Thugs rams amnesty through Congress, it won’t matter. For every fraudulent vote caught, there will be 10 newly minted voters to show ID when voting Democrat.
How much does 'early' voting cost?
Actually Rand Paul has securing the vote as part of his plan which is not the gang of 8 plan. The gang plan has employment verification via E-Verify if I understand it correctly but the truth is its hard to trust anything that Chuck Schumer has his paws in.
As I said in great detail in another thread, Rand Paul is trying to dress up an excrement sandwich. I don’t want to hear any talk of immigration reform that gives these illegals a path to citizenship outside the normal process. I also don’t want to see anything done on the matter until our border is secured with a very large fence, where practicable, and demonstrated enforcement of immigration laws. Until then, the gang of 8 can take their poop sandwich and cram it.
Hell, in Illinois illegals control much of the local governments; in some towns they control all of it (Pilsen, Little Village, just to name a couple). Those two towns are, quite literally, just like being in Mexico. The Mexican flag is displayed most prominently; and if any words in English are spoken they are from some poor doofus who made a wrong turn and ended up there, and his plaintiff cry of “Where the f**k am I?” can be heard.
I agree that security needs to be number one. I think that any bill should be split into three parts and voted on separately. 1 Border Enforcement, 2 Employee/Voter Verification, and 3 legal status reform.
If 1 and 2 are not implemented we should not even consider the legal status reform. It would be political suicide.
A photo ID requirement didn’t help much in Florida, stuffing ballot boxes in blue counties and making red counties wait in 5 hour lines on voting day fixed the vote just fine for these scum.
That illustrates another side of the problem. Trusting the other side to play fair really doesn’t work but at least we can make it harder for them to cheat.
The rats want what they want and even if it makes them look irrational they don’t care.
it really doesn’t make any difference how many illegal aliens or telephone polls vote in Maryland. The Democrats have a lock on the elections ~
Note that the Constitution likewise does not prohibit the states from prohibiting citizens who cannot demonstrate a basic knowledge of the Constitution, as the Founding States had intended for it to be understood, from voting. So just as states appropriately require candidate drivers to pass a written exam in order to drive on public roads, I think that it is likewise appropriate that candidate voters should be required to pass a basic constitutonal knowledge test before being allowed to vote. This would help to prevent citizens who don't know things like Congress's Section 8, Article I-limited powers from voting for candidates for federal office who wrongly promise citizens federal government entitlement programs which cannot be justified under Section 8.
I find it interesting that 3rd world countries and emerging democracies/republics have this thing all figured out already with dipping your fingers in the purple dye that can’t wash off easily.
At this point I’d be willing to go that route.
Edited for actual truth.
I bought a ten pack of Claritan D today and had to show my drivers license. Two weeks ago, I voted and didn’t have to show anything.
Wouldn't that requirement make wooden liberal heads explode.
The ideal Rat voter is an illiterate, illegal immigrant on welfare. It’s
even better if he is also dead.
some states require ID. In Michigan we have to show ID to vote.....
Voter “disenfranchisement” occurs when your legitimate legally cast vote is canceled by an illegitimate illegal vote cast at least once in any given election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.