insomnomaniac

Some people shouldn't vote

For example, the old biddie in this piece on the case under consideration by the SCOTUS right now regarding Voter ID laws in Indiana:

Supreme Court to hear Indiana voter ID law

By Grace Schneider
Louisville Courier-Journal

The U.S. Supreme Court is to hear arguments today on the constitutionality of an Indiana law that requires Hoosiers to show government-issued photo identification, such as a driver's license, before voting.

The law, passed in 2005, has fueled a partisan debate over voting rights and access to the ballot. And it has angered some voters.

Phyllis Beyl, a Sellersburg retiree who doesn't drive and has no substitute photo ID, said she'll vote by absentee ballot -- which is exempt from the ID rule -- to avoid having to conform to something she views as making it more difficult for people like her to vote.

"I've got people who'll take me to the license branch" to get a photo ID, said Beyl, a Democrat. "But I don't want to. Why should I have to?" [Deb: BECAUSE IT'S YOUR CIVIC DUTY! Why SHOULDN'T you do it?]

Conservative groups that support the law say it helps combat voter fraud and maintain the integrity of the electoral process. But civil-rights organizations, five current and former secretaries of state who are Democrats, and advocates for senior citizens have called the measure a veiled effort to reduce turnout among poor, elderly and minority voters.

Show them to me? Where are these "disenfranchised" masses? Not feeling like getting an ID is NOT disenfranchisement by SOMEONE ELSE! The government doesn't have an obligation to make it *easy* for you to vote, just not to go out of its way to actively prevent you from voting. If this is unclear to you, here's a little analogy to help you understand: If there's a blizzard on election day, it's not their job to plow your driveway so you can get out and drive to the polls. It IS their job to plow the roads, and it IS their job not to dump the snow they plow in front of your garage purposely blocking your car from exiting.

Got it?

Your picture ID is the equivalent of you plowing your own driveway, get over it.

"Unfortunately, this thing has gotten bogged down in partisanship," said Kentucky Secretary of State Trey Grayson, a Republican who backs the law. "I think Republicans and Democrats agree that we want to ensure fair elections, and we don't want to disenfranchise voters."

This is political, and a thinly veiled way to UP voter turnout for the Democrats by allowing illegal aliens and others who are not allowed to vote LEGALLY to vote, most likely for their party. It's so obvious, I can't believe I bothered typing this sentence. Might as well have just typed "The sun will rise in the East tomorrow."

Under the law, Indiana voters must present a photo ID with an expiration date, such as a driver's license or passport. Voters who can't produce an ID can cast a provisional ballot that will count if the voter returns to the county clerk with an ID in 10 days.

This sounds completely FAIR. What seems to be the problem?

While other states have enacted voter-ID rules based on recommendations from the 2002 Help America Vote Act, Indiana's law is one of the most strict. Georgia and Florida also require a photo ID; four other states request photo IDs but also accept a signed affidavit from the voter as to his or her identity.

Well this is a joke! A signed affidavit by someone who is OK with fraud is wortheless, especially at the polling place. By the time you figure out the affidavit was bogus (if you even bother to try) the vote is cast and counted, the damage done.

Indiana's law was challenged in two lawsuits, one brought by the state Democratic Party and the other by state Rep. William Crawford, D-Indianapolis, even before it took effect. But the law was upheld by the federal trial court and the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Todd Rokita, Indiana's Republican secretary of state who crafted the legislation and was the defendant in the Democrats' lawsuit, argued in a brief last year that toughening ID requirements will lessen the chance of voter fraud and ensure confidence in elections.

The law doesn't prevent seniors, the disabled and other groups from voting because they can cast votes by mailing in absentee ballots, Rokita wrote.

So what's the problem? I mean seriously! Sounds like the bigger problem might be that this Rokita guy has too much faith in the people casting absentee ballots, but as to the allegation of the plaintiffs, I'm failing to see how this "disenfranchises" people. If anything, it just doens't do much to protect against fraud, but that's not a reason to scrap the idea either (baby's awfully cold without that nice warm bathwater...)

He also cited a University of Missouri study that said that Indiana's law hasn't depressed voter turnout, and actually increased the numbers of those who voted in the state during the 2006 election.

But voting-rights advocates at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law argued that claims of widespread voter fraud are exaggerated.

Does it need to be "widespread" to matter? In close elections, if 10 people vote who shouldn't, it can make a big difference! Just ask some counties in Florida!

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Indiana and other states adopt strict ID requirements, the center estimated that 20 million citizens could be prevented from voting in this year's presidential election.

Please tell me they're kidding. WHAT??? 20 MIL? Prove it! That is OBSCENELY HIGH, I don't believe it, not for a second! You need photo ID to get social services, open a bank account, cash your stupid social security check for crying out loud! 20 MIL? Please! Are we saying there are 20Mil indegent people in Indiana who won't be able to vote? Frankly, if there are that many of them in Indiana, they have bigger problems--much bigger problems--than not being able to VOTE! Who are these people walking around with no means of proving who they are? I have to show a picture ID when using a credit card, to reassure the store I am the owner of that card. If I have to use one when buying a sweater at the Gap, I sure as hell don't have a problem using one to cast a ballot!

Indiana critics insist that Rokita and others are ignoring the realities that ID laws impose on the average citizen.

"It's more or less the old poll tax," said Lettie Oliver, political action director with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 62. The Indianapolis-based union represents workers in Indiana and Kentucky.

Oh here we go...The ugly spectre of racism rears its ugly head...It's only a poll tax if people are told they must PAY to vote. Even paying for a license or passport or other ID, esp. since those fees are very very low (and it's possible to get dispensation for them if you truly are impoverished) isn't the same as charging someone a fee SOLEY for the privilege of voting. At least you get a photo ID out of it, something you can use for OTHER purposes (you know, like functioning in this society).

Oliver said that while many people who don't drive can get the free state-issued ID card, they still must pay to get their birth certificates and other underlying documents needed to apply for the ID.

So sue the dept. of records too while you're at it! I don't like having to pay for a Birth Certificate, but paper and administrative costs COST MONEY, get over it! It's not big money, please!

"What people don't realize is (that) there is a cost" to obtain the photo ID, Oliver said.

And you know what? If you can't afford the damn ID, chances are you don't even vote! Only 30% of our population bothers to show up at all, and you want me to believe that it's all b/c they can't afford their ID? Please! There's a cost for a pack of ciggies and I've seen some pretty poor (and old) people manage to come up with that fee, they can't come up with enough for a license? Spare me.

Robin Winston, a former Indiana Democratic Party chairman and Indianapolis-based political consultant, said critics have focused on how the law disenfranchises urban voters, but it also poses obstacles for rural residents.

If a rural voter has to submit a provisional ballot, he or she will have to return to the county seat during working hours to show an ID for the ballot to count. That often isn't an option, Winston said.

Again, vote absentee then, it's not like you suddenly are stuck in the woods and don't know in advance that it will be hard to get to town, and this isn't Little House on the Prairie! Who are these people who just can't get someplace with 10 days notice, or can't get an absentee in the alternative? Do we want people that easily "inconvenienced" to vote anyway? Do they even WANT to vote in the first place? Really?

"It puts a hardship on rural voters, and it's wrong," he said.

Winston said Rokita spearheaded the ID law only after Republicans gained majorities in both chambers of the legislature in 2004. "Ask Todd why he waited until then," Winston said.

Rokita brushed aside the critics, saying in an interview that the law is genuinely aimed at rooting out imposters. He said the voting alternatives offered by the law make it fair.

Pretty hard to prove that fraud is happening, esp. by illlegal aliens, if you have no way to identify who's voting in the first place! DUH! Although I gotta say, if the registration process and absentee process is so easy, what's to prevent fraud there? Do they have to show photo ID to someone at some stage of those processes (let's hope so)?

"The fact is, there's identity theft in every facet of our lives today. It doesn't stop at the voting booth," Rokita said.

I've had my identity stolen, by multiple people it turns out, should I feel confident none of them voted? And they manufactured fake IDs using my info!! Imagine if that weren't even required!

Luis Fuentes-Rohwer, an associate professor of law at Indiana University, said he and other legal scholars he has spoken with were surprised that the Supreme Court would consider the Indiana law in the face of other pressing constitutional matters.

Good point, this is frivolous, and political, and designed to deal with an outcome in '08 that is not to the liking of the Democrats, shoring up the "THEY STOLE THE ELECTION BY DISENFRANCHISING VOTERS!!!" argument.

Yawn.

Posted by insomnomaniac at January 10, 2008 4:09 PM | TrackBack