I blogged yesterday about the ACLU and their opposition to election reform and integrity. I also noted that it seems the ACLU and the Liberal/Progressives and Democrats are seemingly in bed on this topic.

Well slide over and make room for the NY Times who are also apparently opposed to election reform.

Today in the NY Times Opinion section (free registration required)

(Comments in line, of course) 

Keep Away the Vote

One of the cornerstones of the Republican Party’s strategy for winning elections these days is voter suppression, intentionally putting up barriers between eligible voters and the ballot box. The House of Representatives took a shameful step in this direction yesterday, voting largely along party lines for onerous new voter ID requirements. Laws of this kind are unconstitutional, as an array of courts have already held, and profoundly undemocratic. The Senate should not go along with this cynical, un-American electoral strategy.

a)  The fact it was largely along party lines as opposed to completely shows that this is not a fully partisan issue, as they insinuate.

b)  None of the provisions act as "barriers" to eligible voters, they simple define who is eligible in a meaningful fashion.  Exactly why is that bad?  When the laws also clearly include provisions to make the ID available to anyone, I fail to see an issue.

And all of this ignores the fact that there has been significant voter fraud over the years, including double voting, dead voting and fraudulent registrations, all of which might be fixed if people would quit whining about this, and recognize that voting is as much a responsibility as it is a right. 

And nothing about any "constitutional right" auto-magically makes it exempt from responsibility and precaution.

The bill the House passed yesterday would require people to show photo ID to vote in 2008. Starting in 2010, that photo ID would have to be something like a passport, or an enhanced kind of driver’s license or non-driver’s identification, containing proof of citizenship. This is a level of identification that many Americans simply do not have.

That is often claimed but I believe it is vastly overstated.  And since the bills I have seem most often contain provision to help people get the ID, it is moot.  If the State requires ID it has an implied responsibility to make ID accessible. 

The bill was sold as a means of deterring vote fraud, but that is a phony argument. There is no evidence that a significant number of people are showing up at the polls pretending to be other people, or that a significant number of non-citizens are voting.

That is debatable.  But in cases like Washington’s Governor race, it is a verified fact.  When the margin for victory was under 150 votes, but there were more then 1800 illegal votes, it remains a fact that the illegal votes could have swung the election. 

Noncitizens, particularly undocumented ones, are so wary of getting into trouble with the law that it is hard to imagine them showing up in any numbers and trying to vote.

As I noted in another post, the fact is that this argument is specious.  Illegals demand access to health care, drivers licenses, social benefits like welfare and social security and public schools.  Illegals are not afraid to be present in society, until society demands ID, like in this case.

And the fact is clear that in many places, there has been a call to allow non citizens (not just illegals) to vote.

The fact that the progressives and the NY Times are making this into an "Illegal Immigrant" is just prejudicial demagoguing.

The real threat of voter fraud on a large scale lies with electronic voting, a threat Congress has refused to do anything about.

That and absentee voting where there is absolutely no realistic way to ensure voter integrity. 

The actual reason for this bill is the political calculus that certain kinds of people — the poor, minorities, disabled people and the elderly — are less likely to have valid ID.

Oh bull.  They have ID, they use it for Social Security, welfare, food stamps, checking accounts, schools, hospitals, credit cards and even video rental. 

They are less likely to have cars, and therefore to have drivers’ licenses. There are ways for nondrivers to get special ID cards, but the bill’s supporters know that many people will not go to the effort if they don’t need them to drive.

Again this is a sensational claim, but still spurious. 

If this bill passed the Senate and became law, the electorate would likely become more middle-aged, whiter and richer — and, its sponsors are anticipating, more Republican.

Right, drop the race card, which proves to me you have no valid argument. 

Don’t forget to accuse them of making it all male too. 

Court after court has held that voter ID laws of this kind are unconstitutional. This week, yet another judge in Georgia struck down that state’s voter ID law.

Some have been upheld. 

Last week, a judge in Missouri held its voter ID law to be unconstitutional. Supporters of the House bill are no doubt hoping that they may get lucky, and that the current conservative Supreme Court might uphold their plan.

Of course, the current "conservative court" that still has issued some very liberal rulings.  It is only a bad court when it opposes the liberals.

America has a proud tradition of opening up the franchise to new groups, notably women and blacks, who were once denied it.

And so what?  Was there any indication that citizenship and integrity was not an issue? 

It is disgraceful that, for partisan political reasons, some people are trying to reverse the tide, and standing in the way of people who have every right to vote.

Since the only people who are restricted are those who do not have citizenship, then is this an implied demand to extend voting to all residents, and warm body that shows up?

How convenient, since the Democrats also read polls, that tell them that Illegal Immigrants have said they intend to vote democratic.

I heard a radio host once say "If we don’t let them cheat, they can’t win".

Yep. 

My bottom line is that I want elections in my country that are honest and have relevence.  Elections that are not shrouded in doubt and uncertainty after the fact.  That means registrations that validate eligibility, polling methods that are less error prone and tabulation methods that are transparent and accurate.

And at the very least, I want only the people who are entitled to participate to be allowed to participate.

That is not unreasonable. 

Also at: Sister Toldjah, GT, Don Surber, Associated Press, The Political Pit Bull, Taylor Marsh, Blue Crab Boulevard, A Blog For All, The Democratic Daily, Norwegianity, Say Anything and Blogs for Bush

Trackback URI | Comments RSS