It is interesting that Attorney General Eric Holder would choose to become the point man for a partisan effort by the Obama administration to demonize new voter qualification measures in 14 states. Holder is an embarrassment, credibly accused of lying to Congress in its efforts to get to the bottom of the Fast and Furious fiasco, and justifiably regarded by objective observers as incompetent even before his claim that the botched and deadly gun-smuggling operation went on under his nose without his cognizance, because, you know, he doesn’t read his e-mails. There are many viable theories why President Obama hasn’t yet asked Holder to leave, all plausible, all disturbing: Obama really thinks he’s doing a good job; Obama is being loyal to a loyal employee to the detriment of the nation; Obama is too passive an executive to fire anybody; Obama is afraid of backlash if he fires his highest-ranking black appointee; and my personal favorite, Holder may be horrible, but he’s not as horrible as the last Attorney General, Alberto Gonzalez, whom Bush refused to fire. Also inexcusably.
It is possible that Holder’s speech equating reasonable reforms to limit the opportunities for voter fraud with voter suppression was calculated as a way to ingratiate himself to left-leaning media critics whose support he will surely need as the Fast and Furious noose tightens. It is possible that his argument that the measures are aimed at minorities and the poor is part of Team Obama’s electoral strategy to divide the country—further—along lines of economic status, race and ethnicity. It is even possible that he is sincere. No matter: it is an unjustifiable argument.
Let me state my own bias here: I have never supported the dewy-eyed aspirations that voting should be made as easy as possible to maximize participation. The low level of participation in American elections is testimony to apathy, complacency, laziness and ignorance to be sure, but I do not comprehend why it is desirable to have our elections be further influenced by the lazy, ignorant and apathetic. Indeed, those who worry about the influence of money on elections should seek to encourage voters to be more committed, more involved, more literate and better informed. Lies and slick advertising only sway citizens who have no independent knowledge of their own.
A citizen has years to register to vote, and it’s not an excessively burdensome or intimidating task. If he or she can’t be bothered to make that small effort to participate in self-government, I have no sympathy. Requiring someone to appear in person to register is reasonable; requiring a voter to register at least three days before an election (to provide time for processing) is reasonable. Asking an American to demonstrate every two or four years sufficient interest in their community, state and nation to physically travel to a polling place to engage in an iconic symbolic act of civic duty is also reasonable. Early voters are lazy voters who make up their minds before the campaigns are over; there is no virtue to extending voting periods so more knee-jerk can get democracy over and done with at their convenience. And yes, I think online voting is an abomination, except when a voter is physically disabled.
Thus I suspect the motives and logic of critics like Bill Clinton, the ACLU, Holder and others who pretend that asking an adult to have valid picture identification is the equivalent of a poll tax, or Jim Crow voter literacy laws. The fact that certain standards and requirements of life in the United States fall more heavily on the poor and minority populations do not make those requirements automatically unfair, unreasonable or discriminatory. The requirement that you prove that you are who you say you are before you can cast a vote in an election is one of the clearest examples of this. I have to present ID when I open a bank account, cash a check, rent a car, apply for a passport; I have to show a valid ID before I can board an airplane, purchase a ticket to do so, check into a hotel, or enter government buildings and court houses. By what measuring stick are these activities more important than participating in the democratic process?
Indeed, requiring valid identification to vote has clear benefits to the voter so credentialed. He or she will then be able to participate in the life of the community, find it possible to do all of the things I have mentioned and more, as well as to be able to prove his citizenship. The burdens? A minor cost, perhaps, but an essential one. Some time. And, of course, surrendering the opportunity to commit voter fraud.
The opponents of the various voting reforms deny that the incidence voter fraud is significant, which defies common sense, casual observation and history. Examples of nomination petitions including bundles of fake and forged names are recent and legion; so are parallel examples with other legal documents, such as the recall petitions for Wisconsin governor Scott Walker. We are expected to believe that party operatives attempt (and succeed) to cheat in these lesser procedures, but suddenly become passive in elections? Both parties play statistical games that make it impossible to objectively determine what the real levels of voter fraud are, but it exists, and will as long as there are elections. Loose voter identification makes voter fraud easier, and if it is easier, there will be more of it.
Pressing the inflammatory and emotional claim that reasonable measures like requiring picture IDs is, as civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis said recently, “a deliberate and systematic attempt” to prevent millions of voters from exercising their constitutional right to engage in democracy should raise suspicions of bad intent. It is a contention too obviously not true and illogical for so many rational people to espouse it in good faith, though some undoubtedly do. That is not to say that the likelihood that tightened measures will probably affect Democratic constituencies more than Republican constituencies hasn’t fanned GOP passions for reform: it certainly has. That puts us squarely in the shadowy realm of seeking to do the responsible thing for the wrong reasons. It doesn’t alter the fact that requiring reasonable identification for voters and other reforms are responsible, and the integrity of the electoral process is served both by making it more difficult to cheat and by making civic participation an active rather than a passive process.
Ethics Alarms 
I think picture I.Ds are reasonable as long they are inexpensive and the voters are aware that they need one to vote. The news I have seen is that they (mainly the GOP) don’t want it to be publicized so that many voters won’t be aware of it until the polls open. While in Europe I remember most of the citizens having passports. I think it might be a good idea to have an identification number that is different than social security numbers.
Who says the GOP doesn’t want it publicized? How would it not be publicized? Never mind the fact that any rational person should assume that they would need ID. How much is it publicized that you need an ID to get a hotel room? You need IDs. Period. Everyone should know that. For anyone who doesn’t know that, I question their qualifications to vote at all. They’re out to lunch.
1) You’re telling me that people in nursing homes that are mentally capable to comprehend the political system but no longer have drivers IDs need to have an ID to rent a hotel room? My family usually holds the room for my elderly relative under our credit cards or ID when visiting. Other wise they don’t travel any where. If they have physical trouble getting to the polls wouldn’t it be discrimination if they were mentally able. I registered and voted at the same time absentee in Germany. 2) A state employee in Wisconsin was FIRED for telling the dept of motor vehicle of free voter ID cards. http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2011/09/08/wisconsin-man-fired-for-alerting-dept-of-free-voter-id/ I have seen similar stories elsewhere in the nation as well. I don’t care for the “cattle calls” to the polls. Especially for the people that are ignorant to the political system but the ones that are aware should be able to vote without any gimmicks.
I think it would be a great idea for everyone above the age of 18 to have a photo ID. Regardless if they vote or not. And registering to vote up to 3 days before an election, I think is fair.
Object lesson from Maine. The legislature – along strict party lines – passed a law overturning the state’s same-day voter registration policy. We have citizen referendums here, which can put essential items of law onto the ballot if enough petition signatures are gathered by a certain deadline.
Who led the petition drive? Those who believe they have benefited most by same-day voter registration (Maine’s Democratic Party, which up until this session had a two-decade lock on both houses of the legislature and the Governor’s office).
Who spent the most to promote the overturn? Guess. And all neatly done in an off-year election – one in which unionized state employees have a really remarkable amount of clout.
I’m with Jack on this one. Maine isn’t Chicago; it does NOT have a well-documented history of voter fraud. But the fact that a piece of legislation requiring people to register no later than the Thursday before election day, instead of ON election day, resulted in millions of dollars being spent on petition gathering and electioneering.
I think that pretty much proves that at least here in the State of Maine, same-day registration was clearly understood to work to the benefit of one party. And that party was willing to spend a bundle to protect that advantage. They were successful.
Same day registration is especially geared to political party wranglers rounding up citizens—including the senile and mentally disabled—to vote as directed when the voters had no intention of voting otherwise, and are completely uninformed. It may be the most cynical “pro-voter” measure of all. How hard is it to register if you give a damn? Answer: not hard at all.
Zackly.
I don’t have a driver’s license anymore…my choice,but I do have a photo ID. It’s not unreasonable to require ID to vote. I’ve heard arguments that for some,such as the elderly who were born at home and don’t have a birth certificate,it’s hard to get an ID but how many in the population would truly have a problem? It seems to me that the main reasons to oppose ID would be so that those who are not American citizens or otherwise ineligible to vote,including cons and dead people,wouldn’t be able to vote Democrat. I will forgive dead people for voter fraud.
Looks like the GOP is the only party interested in preventing voter fraud. State-issued photo ID’s are nearly ubiquitous. In Texas UT issues photo IDs–oops they won’t be acceptable. Well, everybody has a driver’s licence…except a few poor souls who don’t drive and don’t have the money to pay the poll tax…oops, I mean the licence fee.
Missouri’s voter id bill was deemed unconstitutional by our state Supreme Court for those very reasons: the things you need to have to obtain a “free” state issued id can cost quite a bit, and amount to the equivalent of a poll tax. I do not see anything intrinsically wrong with requiring id to vote, but it should be phased in and the public should be educated at an early age as to its requirements. There will also necessarily have to be exceptions for those unable, through no fault of their own, to obtain the necessary documentation, or have other legitimate obstacles to obtaining them.
What amount of money are you talking about? Is the requirement of driver’s ed a “transportation tax”? People who care about voting are willing to buy a couple fewer six-packs to get ID—those who regard that as a hardship aren’t interested in voting anyway. I’m sorry—the poll tax/ expense argument is disingenuous.
In terms of a poll tax, the court ruled that any amount is too much. It violates the Voting Rights Act, so even one dollar would be too much. You cannot make people pay for the right to vote, and essentially that is what voter id laws do in some cases.
That court was making a partisan political ruling to assist a party that wants to facilitate voter fraud, or it was dumb as a brick, because neither the law’s purpose nor its execution qualifies as a poll tax. Is having a polling place distant enough that it takes a bus ride to go there a “tax”? The fact that a court makes a dumb decision doesn’t prove anything except that judges make mistakes.
Having to pay for ID in order to vote is not the same as paying to vote. You need an ID to conduct all kinds of business. If payment were required to vote then we would be paying at the polls,paying to register. People who make this into a hardship merely want to defend not having to prove eligibility.
Ooop..*having to prove*
Actually, their mistakes are known as the law of the land.
No, no, no, not disingenuous. Jan and I may be wrong, naive, misinformed, leftist, or numbskulled, but our poll tax argument isn’t disingenuous. My dictionary defines disingenuous this way:
“lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous.”
But we stand ready to accept your apology.
As Bob stated earlier, the ones making the partisan rules to assist a political party are the ones coming up with the voter id laws. And to restate the court’s position, they did not say that requiring an id is equivalent to a poll tax, but the cost of providing the documentation in order to get an id is the equivalent of a poll tax. I believe the exact words they used were “a heavy and substantial burden.”
It’s hard apologizing to you, Bob, because you’re especially good at detecting non-apology-apologies. I’ll extend an apology to you and Jan based on your assertion that the position is not knowingly deceptive or intellectually dishonest. I won’t regurgitate the original article, but I still think something is causing one’s mental tracks to shift out of alignment to regard a basic requirement of identification for something as personal, crucial and easy to cheat on as voting as either a racist plot of an unduly burdensome requirement.
And calling it a poll tax is flat out ridiculous.
Well, I accept your apology, Jack. I don’t see a racist plot (duh!), and I wouldn’t object to an ID requirement. But when the government changes the rules it better have a good reason. And it looks to me–sincerely–like the reason for now demanding a state-issued ID is to reduce the number of Dems voting.
Wisconsin also went so far as not allowing college student photo I.D.s as acceptable at the polls. The colleges are now informing the students that they will provide the free documentation to get the free photo I.D.s that will be accepted by the polls. I think this is silly as these IDs can be circumvented as they are with fake IDs, stolen credit cards, and fake or stolen S.S. numbers. This amounts to more government waste in paper work and man hours in producing ID’s that are possibly going to be used at the most, once a year. Earlier I suggested requiring a national ID at least by the age of 18. Every man has to register for the selective service at the age of 18 regardless of having any other ID or they face prosecution. Since everyone needs a passport or passport card to enter Canada or Mexico, why not make that inclusive as well. Now days kids even need a passport to enter Canda or Mexico. I live near the Canadian border and have considered bringing my kids to a zoo in Canada because it is closer than any other zoos. Just for that we need passports. I think it would be a good idea to have a national photo ID that proves citizenship in our country besides other obvious benefits.
I’m with you. The big impediment seems to be Evangelicals, who regard a national ID card as fulfilling the Biblical prophecy about “the mark of the beast.” Or so I was once told by an Evangelical.
As my Dad liked to say, “Nothing is easy.”
I kind thought about that prophecy as well. My folks had an issued license plate number 666 PEF. I thought it was funny. I worked with guy that had a bar code tattooed on the back of his neck, which I thought was even sillier. As long as it is printed on a card, a bracelet, or dog tags rather than tattooed someplace. Or even an implanted chip which I believe would be infringing on my rights. I don’t have any tattoos, and I’d rather not have any whatsoever, but that’s just me.
These evangelicals should read the Bible for themselves rather than listening to hysterical last day prophesiers.
I’m with you, too, Michael, and I also accept your apology, Jack. This is not a crisis and should not be treated as one. Phasing in the plan Michael outlined above would be fine with me. Imposing new rules on the entire population looks suspicious when they affect one party substantially more than the other and are passed with party line votes.
If the vote should be unanimous…and it should…in favor of making sure the voting process has integrity, the fact that there is a party line vote doesn’t implicate the side seeking reform. I am shocked that no Democrat will admit the inherent foolishness of not requiring accurate identification for the voting process. Yes, I really am.
If anyone can steal my vote by saying they are me, that’s a crisis. Any unnecessary risk to the integrity of the system is a crisis. There is a US Senator in office whose margin of victory was below the margin of error. We elected a President with a similar margin. It is worth making sure that a close election is at least decided by legitimate votes.
The statistics on voter fraud do not even apply in the instance of a senator whose margin of victory was below the margin of error. There was one reported instance of voter fraud in the state of Missouri in the election of 2008. The entire state of Kansas has had 221 cases of voter fraud reported since 1997–let’s see, that’s 17 per year. When the SAME party is proposing the SAME voter ID laws, and the SAME party stands to benefit from a lopsided vote favoring that SAME party, that’s the vote that has no integrity. This is not a problem that has been shown to have any effect on any election. I am in favor of sensible, phased in reform, not taking a sledge hammer to a problem that does not exist, and disenfranchising thousands of people in the process.
You’re making a huge and unwarranted assumption, Jan, which is that reported voter fraud is indicative of the incidence of voter fraud generally. Voter fraud is hard to catch in most cases. Nobody really knows how widespread it is, except that Democrats underestimate its significance and Republicans over-estimate it. Kind of like climate change in reverse. I don’t really care how widespread it is. Voters should have to be able to identify themselves. It’s as simple as that.
There is a recent activity that requires an identification to be presented well supported by the left. That is the ability to receive the vaccination against China Virus. Not only are you required to present an identity card but you are also required to reveal your medical history and sign a waiver to your rights to sue for negligence in the case something goes wrong. Ironically, after being vaccinated you are given a card to prove your status that has no picture so it is easily can be used in a fraudulent manner.