Sep 21 2006
ACLU Challanges Voter Integrity Act
LSU, again, asks the obvious question: What is so fundamentally bad with voter and election integrity, that the ACLU and Democrats almost consistently oppose it? Would someone please explain that one to me?
Enjoy…
Crossposted from Stop The ACLU
Via The ACLU Website:
The American Civil Liberties Union today expressed its disappointment with the House passage of a bill placing undue and unnecessary burdens on Americans’ fundamental right to vote. H.R. 4844, the "Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006," requires voters to present a government-issued photo ID in order to vote in federal elections. In addition, beginning in 2010 voters would be required to present a photo ID that was issued based on proof of citizenship in order to vote. The measure passed by a vote of 228-196.
The following can be attributed to Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office:
"Less than two months after the renewal of the Voting Rights Act, the House of Representatives has chosen to pass legislation disenfranchising the very citizens the VRA was designed to protect. No eligible citizen should have to pay to vote. There are voters who simply don’t have photo ID and requiring them to purchase one in order to vote would be tantamount to a poll tax. This measure will disproportionately impact racial and ethnic minority voters, senior citizens, voters with disabilities, and others who do not have photo identification nor the financial means to acquire it."
What a load of crap! This ridiculous "poll tax" meme is quickly making its rounds. Nancy Pelosi has taken the ball with this one and ran with it headlining with the alarmist title, "Voter ID Bill Is an Attempt to Suppress the Votes of Millions of American Citizens!"
Give me a break! You have got to be kidding! Perhaps they are worried this act will supress "millions" of illegals and dead people from voting! An I.D. is required in many of the most basic things in America such as driving a car or even cashing a check. Please, tell me how all of these poor people that can not afford to get an I.D. cash their welfare checks?
Rep. Henry Hyde makes the same point.
But Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), who sponsored the Federal Election Integrity Act, says requiring voters to show photo ID at the polls "presents no greater hardship than people face performing everyday activities."For example, Hyde noted that government-issued photo IDs are required for driving vehicles, applying for Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, food stamps, boarding airplanes, entering government buildings, registering at school, getting student loans, renting movies, and cashing checks.
Given all the cases in which U.S. citizens are asked to produce photo IDs, it should not be difficult to produce IDs to guard against fraud in the electoral system, Hyde said
It really isn’t surprising that the ACLU would be against making our democratic process have more integrity. After all, they know which side butters their bread. They even keep a scorecard on Congress.
The ACLU are involved across the country fighting voter I.D. laws. In Missouri at least 16 St. Louis area Democrats have been found guilty of election crimes in the last year and a half! When Republican Gov. Matt Blunt signed a law requiring voters to provide I.D. the ACLU had to come up with a different argument than the poll tax crap. Even though Missouri the Missouri law provided for free photo IDs that voters could obtain before election day the ACLU represented a group of Democrats to challenge the law by arguing for a loophole they found stating the law violated a state constitutional provision against imposing costs on local governments without providing state funding. So much for the poll tax argument or putting an undue burden on the poor.
As a matter of fact as Digger’s Realm points out (emphasis added):
Those against it are claiming it’s a poll tax on the poor, minorities and elderly and that they can’t afford to get a drivers license or passport. They fail to mention that the bill includes a portion to pay for free for the poor who can’t afford a photo ID.
People can see for themselves. The full text of the bill is here.
The ACLU were also involved in the recent case against a similar bill in Georgia that was struck down. It also provided free I.D.s. They also fought voter ID laws in New Mexico, Michigan, and Indiana. The ACLU has clearly shown its true colors in support of voter fraud. The only possible reason I can realistically see why someone would be against this bill is if they actually desire for voter fraud to continue. Once again the ACLU has shown just how transparent their lie of non-partisanship is. It is clear what the ACLU and democrats want. They want rights for illegal aliens, dead people, and felons to vote early and often.
This was a production of Stop The ACLU Blogburst. If you would like to join us, please email Jay at Jay@stoptheaclu.com or Gribbit at GribbitR@gmail.com. You will be added to our mailing list and blogroll. Over 200 blogs already on-board.
4 Responses to “ACLU Challanges Voter Integrity Act”
"For example, Hyde noted that government-issued photo IDs are required for driving vehicles, applying for Social Security, Medicare or Medicaid, food stamps, boarding airplanes, entering government buildings, registering at school, getting student loans, renting movies, and cashing checks."
However necessary, all those things are priveleges… Voting is a right. Any more questions, Karl?
This load od Republican BS is 1) just one more back door effort to force a National ID on US - which I refuse to have anything to do with and 2) the crassest of political calculations.
Repubs know that there will be legitimate voters disenfranchized by this. There are a lot of "invisible" people who are nonetheless legitimate voters - people who may want to stay invisible, which is their right. And Repubs - Repugs in this case - believe that for every 10 disenfranchised, 7 will vote Dem…
And stop weeping about illegal aliens… They are trying to stay out of sight… They’re not going to get involved unless some Democratic - or Republican - votehound puts them up to it.
In a perfect world, everyone would realize there are minimum qualifications for voting, everyone would agree on them, and no incompetent person, hermit, street bum, felon, or otherwise unqualified person would try to vote… As it is, incompetent street bums & hermits have the right to pee in the punch, too.
You devise an ID which will guaranteed never disenfranchise any citizen - "I’m sorry, you can’t get an ID without an ID" not allowed - and still preserve anonymity in all other ways and I’ll go along. Otherwise, I’d rather have a few tainted votes than a few cheated voters.
> This load od Republican BS is 1) just one more back door effort to force a National ID on US - which I refuse to have anything to do with
The biggest argument against your position is called the 14th amendment. And there isn’t a word in it about proving anything.
You have your head in your ass-backawrds… Voting is a fundamental right. It is up to the government to provide the means. If I say I am eligible, it is up to you to prove otherwise. You can prosecute me later if you can prove I violated a Constitutional provision.
And I don’t care how much elections cost or how long they take. A right is a right.
Interestingly, article 2 of the 14th has a remedy for all the "Floridas" we’ve had:
"But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."
There you go. Allow disenfranchisement., and you lose some of your electors…
If you don’t like it, amend the Constitution. If you want to advocate a tighter system, I’ll join the bandwagon. Until then, stop trying to amend it through the back door. This is just like the sanctions against electoral speech in McCain - Feingold… One more attempt by the powerful and well-situated to use the law scurriously to protect their place.
The biggest argument against your position is called the 14th amendment. And there isn’t a word in it about proving anything.
And…so? It barely addresses anything in regard to what you are suggesting. Sorry, do better. There is nothing there to suggest that voting is not a serious responsibility. And nothing about requiring proof of eligibility dtracts from your right to your franchise, as long as the state ensures you have the ability to prove it. The state maintains birth records to ensure citizens can prove citizenship, and they issue licences and IDs to validate that.
Done deal.
You have your head in your ass-backawrds… Voting is a fundamental right. It is up to the government to provide the means. If I say I am eligible, it is up to you to prove otherwise. You can prosecute me later if you can prove I violated a Constitutional provision.
Strawman, nothing more. I am waiting to se ethe fundamental right aspect proven.
And I don’t care how much elections cost or how long they take. A right is a right.
I dont disagree, so if the state has to provide you ID so be it. So much for the low income argument.
Interestingly, article 2 of the 14th has a remedy for all the "Floridas" we’ve had:
"But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."
There you go. Allow disenfranchisement., and you lose some of your electors…
And thus you make my point for me. In order for a state to ensure it protects the rights of its people to proper and due representation, they have a sacred respoinsibility to ensure the election process is not corrupted, which includes not only ensuring eligible voters are enbaled to vote, that also means ensuring ineligible people are denied the right.
If you don’t like it, amend the Constitution. If you want to advocate a tighter system, I’ll join the bandwagon. Until then, stop trying to amend it through the back door. This is just like the sanctions against electoral speech in McCain - Feingold… One more attempt by the powerful and well-situated to use the law scurriously to protect their place.
I actually would support a voters rights amendment to finally settle the question, as well as a national ID amendment.
Our countries security and integrity pretty much demands it,.
Good idea, thanks Dan.