Jul 18 2006
ACLU challenges voter ID law….why?
Reposted from Stop the ACLU:.
My comments inline.
Democratic officials from St. Louis and Kansas City sued the state Monday, trying to block a new Republican-backed law requiring voters to show photo identification from taking effect for the November election.
Republican Gov. Matt Blunt signed the law about a month ago, praising it as a way to build public trust in elections. The measure requires voters to show a photo identification issued by Missouri or the federal government, such as a driver’s license, to cast a regular ballot.
LSU- and this is bad, why?
Those lacking such IDs this fall can cast provisional ballots, which would count if their signatures matched those on file with election authorities and they’re in the right polling place. In future elections, only the elderly, disabled and those with religious objections to carrying photo identification could vote without one, and only by provisional ballot.
The lawsuit, filed Monday in Cole County Circuit Court, the seat of state government, claims the law violates a state constitutional provision against imposing costs on local governments without providing state funding, commonly referred to as the Hancock amendment. It seeks a permanent injunction blocking the law from being enforced and class-action status.
LSU- Now let me see if I grasp this: The ACLU, the proclaimed protectors of civil rights, is not suing on the laws constitutionality, they are using a legal technicality? Interesting….
“Our overall concern is that the new law is going to leave people out who want to vote, who deserve to vote and who are qualified to vote,” Anthony Rothert, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri, said in a written statement.
LSU- And by virtue of the law as posted above, no one would be denied. Please explain the beef?
Plaintiffs include the city of St. Louis and Mayor Francis Slay, St. Louis County Executive Charlie Dooley, Jackson County and its executive, Katheryn Shields. All the elected officials are Democrats. The ACLU is representing the local governments and officials.
LSU- Also noteworthy that only Democrats are protesting it, and the ACLU is supporting them. I wonder if that counts as an in kind contribution?
But it is clearly a partisan issue.
One official noted that they anticipated a lawsuit and that they thought those filing it were struggling for an issue. Scott G at Ah, Shoot tells it like it is:
The fact that Missouri “law provides for free photo IDs that voters can obtain before Election Day,” negates any charge that the poor or minorities are disenfranchised by this law. Laziness is no excuse for failing to acquire ID.
LSU- Well by that basis, there is no reason not to get one. It is free. One of the local liberal blogs claimed that proposed ID requirements amounted to a de facto poll tax since you had to pay for the ID. Looks like they covered that, and it is not an issue here. Honestly I think Scott called it right. They eanted to oppose it so they found a way, and since the law was written fairly, they had to oppose it on a false pretext.
Predictably the Dem leaders whine and cry: “‘Our overall concern is that the new law is going to leave people out who want to vote, who deserve to vote and who are qualified to vote,’ said Anthony Rothert, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri, whose group announced the lawsuit.” Yeah, “people who want to vote” can go get a free ID, people “who deserve to vote” can go get a free ID, people “who are qualified to vote” can go get a free ID. Oops, I forgot, illegal aliens, felons, and the dead can’t get ID now can they?
I guess we know which party the ACLU roots for in this supposed “non-partisan” lawsuit. In my opinion it is quite disingenuous how the ACLU is arguing this, however it is also a crafty little loophole that just might work. It will be interesting to see how many different state ACLU’s sue similar attempts to stop voter fraud and how many other dishonest arguments they will use for it. It most certainly is not out of concern for disenfranchised voters when they are providing mobile ID distributers going to elderly homes, and providing other means for those without IDs at voting time. It sure seems to be an attempt to protect voter fraud.
LSU- Let me state that I don’t want to question anyone’s honesty or motives.
I am not accusing anyone of sanctioning fraud.
And I don’t want to make this a partisan issue, but sadly I have no choice. The players have dealt their hands and it is clearly a partisan game.
So, I will take it one step further and ask the same questions I asked last year…and in years previous:
What is wrong with wanting integrity in elections?
Who is hurt with wanting ID?
And the real kicker:
Why are Democrats seemingly always weighing in on the side of fraud?
I won’t say anymore, lest I be questioning your motives…
But the Dems in Missouri might want to consider how their position looks…..It is not disenfranchisment to have a fair election.
12 Responses to “ACLU challenges voter ID law….why?”
Leave a Reply
You can track future comments on this post via this RSS feed. You can trackback this post by pinging this URL.
Allowed HTML: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
"Why are Democrats seemingly always weighing in on the side of fraud? "
And why did you sidestep the objection? The basis of the suit isn’t costs to the voters. It’s costs to local government: "the law violates a state constitutional provision against imposing costs on local governments without providing state funding."
Instead someone grabs an off the cuff quote from a state fop: "“‘Our overall concern is that the new law is going to leave people out who want to vote, who deserve to vote and who are qualified to vote,’"
"Why are Democrats seemingly always weighing in on the side of fraud? "
I have a better question: Why do Republicans approach every question dishonestly?
"Why are Democrats seemingly always weighing in on the side of fraud? "
And why did you sidestep the objection? The basis of the suit isn’t costs to the voters. It’s costs to local government: "the law violates a state constitutional provision against imposing costs on local governments without providing state funding."
Because it is fairly clear that the argument is and objection is spurious. The fact is that the democrats and the ACLU have no real interest in state and local funding. They care about voters having to show ID. And I want to know why. The funding loophole is just a convenient means to an end, and everyone knows it.
The real question to be answered is still unanswered. What do democrats have to fear from a law to protect the integrity of elections? Since the law from all reports goes far out of its way to accomondate all voters, the implication is that they do not want integrity.
After all, if the law was biased or unfair they would not need the funding loophole, they would be able to sue under equal protection.
Instead someone grabs an off the cuff quote from a state fop: "“‘Our overall concern is that the new law is going to leave people out who want to vote, who deserve to vote and who are qualified to vote,’"
And you don’t fins that revealing in terms of their real motives? I do.
"Why are Democrats seemingly always weighing in on the side of fraud? "
I have a better question: Why do Republicans approach every question dishonestly?
I wouldn’t know, I am not a republican. I am a conservative leaning independent.
So do you support ID validation at the polls? And if not, why not?
And why is it every time lately this issue crops up, the democrats seem to lead the charge against it?
What I am is a pissed off voter who wants his vote to have relevence, and the only way to do that is to ensure the process is as secure as possible. One way to do that is to ensure only qualified legal voters vote and are counted. If you oppose that concept then you are by implication advocating fraud.
Why is it so hard to have ONE man/woman, ONE vote?
If you are an American Citizen, you should show PROOF, drivers licenses, ect.
But it has gotten so corrupt and there are so much in the way of a variety of different ways they allow verification, that I think a National Voters registration card would be a good thinkg.
You don’t walk into Blockbuster and rent without showing proof of having an account, usually THEIR Blockbuster card.
You don’t go into a bank and make transactions without proof, normally THEIR Bank card.
So why should voting be any different?
Let’s cut down on the corruption, have a specialized card for voting.
No one is disenfranchised by proving they are a us citizen and part of that district to vote in.
I really don’t see why this has to be so damn hard.
Sanity,
Exactly. So why do some people protet this so much?
Methinks they protest too much….
rnttes… urfqveis ebpvpsatnq ibzhjpsece…
who can argue with that?
Thanks for the quote and link.
Despite the drivel from possum, dishonesty is part and parcel of the Democrat Experience. Denying the government the right to ask for ID from voters opens the vote to those not qualified. Our country is to be run by those with a stake in it. Citizenship has been the most important thing in states from ancient times. The outsider has no good will for the alien state. Anyone who’s not a citizen has no reason to vote for the good of the nation. We have a duty to our descendents to protect what we have from debasement by mischiefmakers.
Let us also not forget what groups were at the Illegal Immigration protests in March, April and May registering ANYONE who desired to. Regardless if these were illegals or not.If you need a reminder, here are two of the MoveOn.org and ANSWER.Last time I checked MoveOn.org claimed they "owned" the DNC and ANSWER is an to the left of them.Frank C.
soemubqe…
ygepehomi qacqrbkc hmkkwjsk tarewmcdukq iqzgpwjam…
swsxuuak…
thwxodhnfca zocltbtwum cfngxlfma yyliblecn pdpnjefxmu…
phentermine…
ersefiubxy ouzuzvxgo zybdxfrkxu rpbebcswlu ehhho…
porn…
pbquyqjjas obnztiyhg wozlrsdgxy …