« Air America Begs for Money | Main | DeLay Indicted »
September 28, 2005
Why Democrats Don't Want Voter ID Cards
Caroline Fredrickson, director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Washington, editorializes in the pages of USA Today, complaining about the recommendations of the Carter-Baker commission, that would require a photo ID to vote in elections. She says the commission is "on the wrong track."
As Supreme Court Justice Stanley Matthews wrote in a landmark case in 1886, the right to vote is fundamental because it is "preservative of all rights." Requiring a photo ID to vote, as the Carter-Baker commission recommends, would have a chilling effect on voter participation. It would block some Americans from the political process.
You are right, it would. It block following Americans from voting:
- 1) the dead ones
2) the ones that vote twice
3) the ones that don't exist (excluding the dead ones)
And coincidentally, these three voting blocks all vote Democrat (or attempted to register as Democrats).
The Carter-Baker recommendations are so restrictive that even a valid U.S. passport or photo ID issued by the U.S. military isn't good enough. Voters must have a driver's license that meets the requirements of the controversial Real ID Act, which set strict standards for obtaining state-issued licenses.Such a requirement would disproportionately impact poor people, the disabled, the elderly and people of color, who are all statistically less likely to have driver's licenses. The commission recommended an alternative photo ID be available for non-drivers, but no infrastructure is in place to make those available, particularly for the elderly. In addition, there was no cost assessment in the report.
From the Executive Summary of the report, this is not the case, at all.
To prevent the ID from being a barrier to voting, we recommend that states use the registration and ID process to enfranchise more voters than ever. States should play an affirmative role in reaching out to non-drivers by providing more offices, including mobile ones, to register voters and provide photo IDs free of charge. There is likely to be less discrimination against minorities if there is a single, uniform ID, than if poll workers can apply multiple standards. In addition, we suggest procedural and institutional safeguards to make sure that the rights of citizens are not abused and that voters will not be disenfranchised because of an ID requirement. We also propose that voters who do not have a photo ID during a transitional period receive a provisional ballot that would be counted if their signature is verified.
It is quite interesting that a member of the ACLU, a fringe left wing group, continues to see these recommendations as too costly.
According to a 2001 election-reform report, 6% to 10% of voting-age Americans don't have driver's licenses, and requiring them would be a "burden that would fall disproportionately on people who are poorer and urban." This burden will increase as states are forced to cover the costs of the Real ID Act, estimated at up to $13 billion, in part by increasing the price of a new license.
While it may cost some money for these supplementary voter ID cards, the benefit is a more accurate election. $13 billion, relative to our national economy, is not much. All told, while it might cost that amount, it will cost more to the Democrats, who have come to depend on voter fraud to win elections. If $13 billion seems like a lot, perhaps this ACLU director ought to not be a part of an organization that supports illegal immigration, that cost the United States much more than $13 billion a year. As I calculated once before, it would save the United States atleast $46 billion (this number is a significant underestimate) per year if illegal immigrants were not de facto provided with the services that the ACLU fights for them to have.
Of course, the obvious complain is that this voter ID recommendation is a step towards a national ID card.
By adopting the restrictive standards of the Real ID Act, the Carter-Baker proposal also takes us one step closer to a national ID. National guidelines for standardized IDs, and a proposed database for states to share voter-identification information, are the beginning of a "show us your papers" society.
And what would be wrong with a Natioanl ID Card? This discriminates against no one except illegal immigrants, again, the primary benefactors of the services of the ACLU, and likely Democrat voters.
This proposal is nothing new. The Carter-Ford commission rejected a less restrictive photo ID proposal in 2001. If this commission had used a more democratic process, such as giving the public the opportunity to comment, members may have come to a similar conclusion this year as well.
With over 100 million voters who turned out for the 2004 election, that's a lot of possible feedback and suggestions. Again, for someone purporting to defend a person's constitutional rights, she knows nothing about our government, which is not a pure democracy, but a federal republic.
The recommendations of the Carter-Baker commission will not hurt voter turnout, only voter fraud--and that is why you will see liberals be outspoken in their disdain for these recommendations, for without voter fraud, they haven't a chance at getting back into the White House.
Posted by Aaron at September 28, 2005 01:01 PM
Copyright © 2007 by author. May not be copied, published, or otherwise used (except for brief quotes) without express permission of author. Articles published with permission by Pardon My English.
-->Comments
>>It is quite interesting that a member of the ACLU, a fringe left wing group, continues to see these recommendations as too costly.
You could refer to the ACLU as "defenders of Rush Limbaugh's medical privacy."
Posted by mattk ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.pardonmyenglish.com//nav-commenters.gif)
at September 28, 2005 01:48 PM
Yeah matt....and what about OTHER 99% of the cases. Oh yeah, I forgot the rule of "one instance out of the ordinary" makes the rule. Good thing you actually went for the topic instead of going after an irrelevant sentence you disagree with in typical UY fashion. If you're gonna do some learning around here...don't learn it from that troll.
The only people that have a problem with this are the ones that enjoy the benefits of voting fraud. Watch closely and pay attention to who speaks out against this....and THERE you will find the answer as to who enjoys the benefits of voting fraud.
I noticed they brought up through a slippery slope argument...that whole "Your papers, please" non-point that is not pertinent or logical. Sorry folks, this is just standards for your STATE to issue you a STATE identification card with which you can vote and the gubmint can minimize fraud, nothing more sinister than that....unless you are against it...then this sets up the U.S. Fascistii, turns the Republican party into the Nazi party, and calls for the beheading of everyone non-white.
Posted by Sarge at September 28, 2005 02:11 PM
Oddly enough, I allready have an Illinois State ID card. I don't know if all states allready issue those upon request, (I would guess they do, for legal identification purposes in the case of people who don't have driver's licenses), Illinois certainly does.
"You could refer to the ACLU as "defenders of Rush Limbaugh's medical privacy.""
You can refer to that as the 'token defense of a conversative who routinely criticizes us so we can bring up 5 times a year for the next 50 years as proof we're not biased'.
Posted by MJohnson at September 28, 2005 02:46 PM
I think a national ID card is a great idea.
Posted by Richard Frankel at September 28, 2005 03:27 PM
"I think a national ID card is a great idea."
I think a national ID card sounds like unneccessary waste. I think the bumbling federal government, to give 300 million people ID cards, will spend 300 billion dollars and fail miserably at providing any sembalence of fraud-proof ID verification.
I think all the states allready have state issued ID cards and that'll be good enough.
Posted by MJohnson at September 28, 2005 03:35 PM
Ms.,Mrs.,Miss,whatever, Fredickson would most likely be sorry if this idea was put to a vote by the "public", giving them the "opportunity to comment". The "public" is sick and tired of illegals and the cost of supporting them.
Posted by Lisa at September 28, 2005 03:49 PM
>>The "public" is sick and tired of illegals and the cost of supporting them.
Except when it comes to serving us food or cleaning our homes.
Posted by mattk at September 28, 2005 04:05 PM
Don't we already have a national ID card called a "Passport" ?
Personally, I'm all for having to show ID to vote, and proof of citizenship to register to vote (ie Birth Certificate or Passport) if people think that's too cumbersome or complicated then, well, they shouldn't be able to vote ..and I consider myself fairly Liberal, er, I mean Progressive ...But it makes sense to me to require ID of some sort , otherwise how else can you hope to curtail voter fraud?
But what do we do about absentee ballots? I wouldn't have been able to vote in the 2004 election had it not been for absentee voting because I was in the process of moving cross country.
Posted by TRF at September 28, 2005 04:09 PM
I think the best way to do it would be to use SSNs. Everyone allready has one. Everyone has only 1. Everyone has a name and address on record with the government according to thiers. Only as many exist as living legal citizens exist.
Posted by MJohnson at September 28, 2005 04:17 PM
>>I think the best way to do it would be to use SSNs.
I think my SSN gets tossed around waaay too much already.
Posted by mattk at September 28, 2005 04:28 PM
Except when it comes to serving us food or cleaning our homes.
I don't give a shit. I don't get served by illegals. We use legal Brazilian labor for that. I don't have anyone clean my house other than myself. I have no problem paying a little more for my lettuce if it'll mean we as a country save $$$BILLIONS every year.
TRF....agree fully. Absentee ballots, however, are an entirely different manner in which fraud can and will exist......AND they're waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay over-issued. Now, some of the People just use 'em so they don't have to wait for election day.....and for fradulent purposes. Whereas, they're supposed to be as a last resort for those that are unable to get to the polls....like you in your move or the military or someone on a business trip. The rest of us sheeple can and will vote.
How about provisional ballots? There's yet another big fraud area that needs to be done away with. Sorry folks, most states require you to register to vote...that's how they get their rolls for jury duty.
Posted by Sarge at September 28, 2005 04:37 PM
No Mattk, I AM sick and tired of not understanding, nor BEING understood by my illegal food server. I worked in the cleaning industry for many years, and I can tell you that there is NO shortage of legal Americans desiring this job. Whenever there was an opening somewhere, I was beseiged with applicants. You are just repeating your party line, and it is FALSE.
Posted by Lisa at September 28, 2005 04:38 PM
>>You are just repeating your party line, and it is FALSE.
I hardly think illegal immigrats would come here if they knew they wouldn't find work.
Posted by mattk at September 28, 2005 04:50 PM
I was referring to the Dem talking point that ONLY illegals will do those jobs, and that WE like it that way.
Posted by Lisa at September 28, 2005 05:07 PM
Lisa, thanks for keeping me on point. Sometimes I forget what I'm _supposed_ to be saying.
Posted by mattk at September 28, 2005 05:30 PM
In principle, I don't oppose a national voter I.D card, or fifty separate states issuing their own. I do think that there is nothing wrong with the idea of asking people to prove that they are who they say they are when they go to vote. That said, we need safeguards to protect those who dont have photo ID from voting. Also, as disucssed above, it makes absentee balloting a mess.
Posted by Herbert92X at September 28, 2005 05:41 PM
I want the old Mass lost liciense standard. Three forms of Identification.
One of which is a birth certificate. You can go down to the Registry, in Haverhill, Mass, 4 Summer Street, and get an ID for $15 even if you don't drive, five minute walk from the illegal haven on the hill.
Takes five minuites, what is the problem? It does have a picture.
Bill
Posted by Little Bill at September 28, 2005 05:57 PM
I hardly think illegal immigrats would come here if they knew they wouldn't find work.
Well, you can hardly be mor eincorrect. They'll come here solely for the purpose of living off of our welfare system as well. But of course, this is just a change of the subject...even from your bogus claim that we don't care about illegals if they're serving us. Dance, dance, dance....
Posted by Sarge at September 29, 2005 09:34 AM
Note: Comments once posted become the property of Pardon My English. We therefore reserve the right to make use of such in any manner and for whatever purpose we deem appropriate. Please refer to comment policy for further information.
