International Cat Speculators Since 2006

Posts tagged ‘Voter Fraud’

Voter ID debate – over.

For people who aren’t familiar, there is an ongoing debate in the US about presenting ID when voting.

The argument for is pretty straightforward: if you want to vote, you should be able to prove who you are in order to prevent fraud.

The counter-argument is less… calm and rational. Let’s let Idiot give a typical rendition with a local slant.

Which is of course the point. But it’s not just about reducing turnout generally, but about reducing turnout amongst those more likely to support the left. The blunt fact is that the poor are less likely than the rich to have the required forms of ID or be comfortable dealing with bureaucracy, and thus less likely to be able to vote under such a system. Which is exactly what National wants. This isn’t about preventing fraud – which is virtually nonexistent in New Zealand – but about disenfranchising the poor by stealth.

Get that? We shouldn’t do anything to prevent voter fraud because there is no voter fraud. But it’s not because we don’t do anything to prevent it.

The absurdity of this position has been pointed out before. For example, Project Veritas was able to walk into a voting booth and obtain Eric Holder’s voting paper, but the same people were not able to walk into a bar and get a beer without id. (And claims of racism didn’t get them very far towards inebriation.)

But this latest episode seals the deal.

Last week, opponents of voter ID laws — the easiest and most common-sense method to safeguard against identity theft at the ballot box — received a one-two punch in Pennsylvania that should put their crusade against the security measure down for the count.

On August 15, a Pennsylvania judge upheld the Commonwealth’s new law requiring one of a plethora of forms of identification — including a driver’s license, accredited school ID, government employee badge and a new voter-specific ID, among others — be used at a polling place to certify a voter is who they say they are.

The next day, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit got the ID she needed to vote despite the alleged hurdles her ACLU lawyers said stood in her way.

Viviette Applewhite took two public buses to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation office on her own. In its filing on her behalf, the ACLU insisted the elderly civil rights movement veteran whose purse was stolen years ago and lacks a birth certificate “has been unable to obtain photo identification required by Pennsylvania’s photo ID law” and “will no longer be able to vote.”

Massive. Fail.

This episode should end all arguments that voter ID is voter suppression. Applewhite’s ability to easily get an ID card is a complete repudiation of the vicious campaign of deceit against voter ID that has seen ample plays of the race card (Applewhite is black) and the age card (she is 93 and uses a wheelchair), as well as the amplification of the left’s class-warfare strategy (she is poor).

So getting a photo ID is impossible… but a 93 year old poor black woman in a wheelchair who’s ID was stolen years ago can in fact get one without assistance!

But there’s another aspect to this. A rather odvious one to you and I perhaps, but one seemingly missed by those who have spent so much effort trying to deny common sense.

Viviette Applewhite didn’t need an army of ACLU lawyers to secure her vote — but she could have used a ride. Therein lies the inherent irresponsibility of liberal voter ID complaints.

Liberals appear adept at registering people to vote. The NAACP, for instance, has a website dedicated to helping people register. Groups such as the Voter Participation Center are sending out absentee ballots to seemingly every mailing list they can find with such zeal that family pets are receiving VPC’s partially completed requests for ballots. Similar groups are devoting significant resources to educating potential voters about liberal candidates and issues. And there will undoubtedly be massive get-out-the-vote efforts in November.

Yet there never seems to be a point where potential voters are asked: “Do you know you need proper ID to vote? Can we help you get that ID?”

Apparently it’s easier to launch an expensive lawsuit to claim that someone’s rights are being violated (when clearly they are not) than it is to offer help to people who might find the law less than convenient.

Anyone for a drink?

Who Wants Fraud Free Elections?

I noticed this on Patterico. Basically, a Democrat governor boasted in a speech that they had the police use stand-over tactics to drive away Republican poll monitors.

Gosh, such nice guys those Democrats.

They reached in their pocket, showed them their drivers license showin’ that they come from Rhode Island or Texas or some damn place, and then they said to ‘em, “um, people matching your description *laughter* have been reported as having stolen a pick-up about 30 miles…*laughter* *applause* we only have on jail here and we don’t have a phone here and we already got 11 people in it *mumbled* sometimes it takes 2 or 3 days to work these things out. So either come with us in the backseat of our car or you can both get in the front seat of your car and we’ll lead you off this reservation, and if we never see you again, you won’t go to jail.” We didn’t lose one single vote in there. *applause*

The Attorney General of Montana doesn’t feel like investigating this – you see, the governor was just joking.

Supreme Court: Well, of course ID is needed to vote

As predicted, the Supreme Court threw out the ridiculous case against the law that requires voters to present photo IDs when voting.


Can’t agree more with this one.

“Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. concurred in the judgment of the court, but went further in rejecting the plaintiffs’ challenge. In an opinion by Justice Scalia, the three justices said, “The law should be upheld because its overall burden is minimal and justified.”

Update: The LA Times puts in solid words another thought that occurred, that the other side may actually have the small resemblance of a point.

Through the 1950s and ’60s, the Supreme Court extended the reach of American democracy. The court asserted its right to review legislative districting schemes that reduced the voting strength of urban voters — mostly African Americans — then used that power to tilt society toward equality. It also struck down literacy tests and poll taxes, contrived by malevolent election supervisors to deny blacks the chance to cast ballots. Those rulings made elections fairer and broadened participation, and they comprised a noble history of overcoming powerful resistance, which dignified the court.

However, requiring all voters to showing ID is legitimate, unlike the “literacy tests” “(please read this Chinese newspaper”) applied only to black people. Then there’s the fact that about a thousand groups would be all over a legitimate case these days – times have changed folks.

Also note that the court has only a one vote “conservative” majority. This ruling was 6-3. Oh, and one of those is Black.

Tag Cloud