Posted on 05/15/2014 8:17:30 AM PDT by Kaslin
The logic behind laws requiring voters to provide a government-issued photo identification card is simple and seductive: If you need to show an ID to board a plane, open a bank account, get public aid or do any number of other things, it only makes sense to do the same before casting a ballot.
That was what Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican, said in 2011 as he signed a law imposing this new mandate. "There really is no barrier for people," he asserted. "Particularly in a society where people need photo identification for just about everything else, including checking out a book from the library ... it's a reasonable requirement."
Many of the advocates can't imagine anyone functioning in 21st-century America without valid proof of identity. So they are skeptical that requiring it could possibly be an obstacle to voting. They also tend to believe that anyone who lacks something so basic deserves no accommodation.
These attitudes reflect a failure to understand the lives of many Americans. In the suit challenging the Wisconsin law, which recently was overturned by a federal court, a parade of people attested that they lacked the required ID and, in many cases, couldn't easily get it.
One of them was Ruthelle Frank, a former member of the village board of Brokaw. She has never had a driver's license or state ID, and her 1927 birth certificate has a misspelling. To get it fixed, she would have to undertake a legal process that could cost $200.
Another was Mariannis Ginorio, a young Milwaukee woman. She had no driver's license, and Wisconsin doesn't accept birth certificates from her native Puerto Rico issued before 2010. Sam Bulmer, a homeless Air Force veteran, could offer only a federal Veterans Identification Card -- which is not on the list of IDs recognized by the state.
Statewide, the court concluded, 300,000 eligible voters don't have the documents needed for voting. In the normal course of life, people like this don't need them.
Fifteen percent of white adults in Wisconsin, and half of blacks and Hispanics, don't drive. Passport holders are a minority of the population. A lot of people don't need a photo ID to board a plane because they don't fly.
In fact, the Transportation Security Administration doesn't bar anyone who shows up without an ID. In that case, the TSA says, "You'll be able to fly as long as you provide us with some information that will help us determine you are who you say you are."
Seniors can verify their eligibility for Social Security without a photo ID. Food stamps? Federal regulations say "any documents which reasonably establish the applicant's identity must be accepted, and no requirement for a specific document, such as a birth certificate, may be imposed." Libraries will generally accept a utility bill or something similar to issue a card.
Opening a bank account? Larry Dupuis, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin Foundation, says he never had to show an ID to open his account, which he did some two decades ago. "It's really a post-9/11 thing," he says, for banks to require one. But many poor people don't have bank accounts.
Those activities, in any event, are not constitutionally guaranteed, which voting is. The government can impose regulations that affect constitutional rights. But it must have a good reason, and the rules can't be an undue burden. States can mandate a 24-hour waiting period for abortions, which the Supreme Court says is a modest restriction justified by "the state's interest in protecting the life of the unborn."
Under federal law, you may buy a gun from a private seller without an ID. Licensed dealers must see photo identification, despite the Second Amendment. That's not hard to justify because if a person forbidden to own firearms acquires one -- say a convicted felon -- the outcome may be fatal.
If a person forbidden to vote manages to cast a ballot by pretending to be someone else, by contrast, the election result will almost never be affected. Besides, the sort of fraud that an ID would prevent is exceedingly rare. The court in Wisconsin found the requirement would block vastly more legal voters than fraudulent ones.
States have long had procedures that discourage fraud by impersonation without blocking legitimate voters from the polls. The stricter new requirements may sound reasonable, but they're not reasonable for everyone -- or reasonable for democracy.
Of course they do, because the only way to win for them is through fraud.
ID standards for playing little league baseball are more stringent in this country than for voting, which has far more profound consequences.
Nobody THINKS FOR THEMSELVES in this country anymore. As it is with pretty much all leftist positions on issues, they are nonsensical, illogical and have evil intent.
There’s a simple way around this, since the cases for those “unable” to get an ID are extremely rare,
they can cast a “provisional” ballot, and if the margin of election victory is smaller than the number of provisional ballots, they must be opened, verified individually, and counted.
Otherwise, they remain sealed up.
This concept is one of those “IQ tests” for leftists, and they usually fail the test.
When this is proposed, they scream that every vote should count. They just don’t get the concept that counting these votes when the margin of the election is greater than the number of these votes just wouldn’t matter.
C’mon Now,Anybody Can Find A Few Exceptions!!This is BULLSH*T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I’ve had a leftist attempt to argue that those on the receiving end of taxpayer largess obviously DO “have a stake” in the outcome of the election.
Yeah, their ability to use the gov’t as an instrument of theft.
This is like saying a thief “has a stake” in what kind of alarm system you put on your house.
Next time you are asked for your photo ID tell the person asking, “I’ll provide the ID only when voter ID is also required”. See how far you get then. Be sure to have a CONSERVATIVE news person within camera or hearing distance, you definitely want it on national news.
Chapman is the token raving leftist on TownHall.com. Mindless drivel, but always entertaining.
Should you have to show an ID when attending a public meeting with a politician?
I think not.
Boo-hoo.
This woman couldn't find $200 in 87 years?
Let's give her the benefit of doubt and credit her back the years before she was eligible to vote. That makes it 69 years to get her birth certificate fixed.
And she's complaining now?
-PJ
Since when does a married name, and I assume last name match a birth certificate, unless it’s the same?
Only a cheater would object to Voter ID!
Easy solution.
If a person shows up to vote without photo ID, they sign an affidavit attesting to their eligibility to vote and that they recognize the fact that if they are falsely claiming that eligibility, they are committing a felony and subject to a mandatory 5 years imprisonment. Then they hold up the affidavit and their picture is taken. They are then allowed to vote.
The state is then required to confirm the persons identity and eligibility whereupon they either issue an ID or put the person in jail.
Sooner or later all these people with no ID will need to get sorted out to deal with IRS, SS or some other govt organization. So best to get it done while they are alive.
Agreed, but I would go even further. ANY citizen, and I stress citizen, who receives a check as the primary source of income from employment from a federal, state, or local government body or entity, is not allowed to vote, with exceptions for the military, and perhaps a few other groups I can’t think of right now.
Yep
If 26 million Afganis can venture across rugged terrain and get past terrorists to vote, so can grandma.
If a person forbidden to vote manages to cast a ballot by pretending to be someone else, by contrast, the election result will almost never be affected. Besides, the sort of fraud that an ID would prevent is exceedingly rare. The court in Wisconsin found the requirement would block vastly more legal voters than fraudulent ones.
Ask Jews in 1944 Germany whether the wrong leaders (who are chosen through VOTING) may be fatal.
So the author KNOWS that systematized and organized voter fraud on a scale which determines elections does not occur? What was ACORN about then? Why did the Fed's illegally target and persecute the 'True the Vote' crowd?
Oops, not quite enough: “and who receives a government check as a form of entitlement, other than Social Security”. The EBT crowd needs to be prohibited as well, but the idea is there.
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.