About This Blog
There is a case about Indiana voter ID law coming before the Supreme Court. Under voter ID legislation, voters would have to show proper photo ID in order to vote. Conservatives generally support this law, saying that it will reduce voter fraud. Liberals generally oppose the law, claiming that voter fraud is their constitutional right.
Okay, liberals don't actually cop to their intent to perpetrate fraud. Instead, they dream up illogical and imaginary arguments to oppose voter ID, like the one NY Times Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse gave to PBS host Gwen Ifill on the program Washington Week In Review. TimesWatch has the story. Following is an excerpt:
Gwen Ifill: "What is objectionable about that (Voter ID) ? It doesn't seem unreasonable on its face."
Greenhouse: "Well, what's objectionable about it is what kinds of IDs are people likely to have? If it's state issued, it's a driver's license -- not everybody has one. If it's federally issued, it's a passport. There's not a photo on your Social Security card. There's not a photo. So the disparate impact of a law like this falls on the elderly, the poor, people with disabilities, and so on. And the Indiana law is a tough one. If you show up without the requisite ID you can cast a provisional ballot which will only be counted if within 10 days you get yourself to a county courthouse, a county clerk, and you either get the ID or you get a substitute ID from the Motor Vehicle's Office, for which you have to show ID to show you're entitled to that. So the federal judge, Judge Posner, who wrote the majority opinion upholding this law for the Appeals Court said, yes, it will have a disparate impact and it's going to hurt Democrats because poor people are more likely to be Democratic voters. It will hurt them, but it won't hurt them much. The individual vote isn't that important and the state interest in preventing voter fraud is substantial enough that it's worth the price. That was his way of tackling it."
Evidently, Greenhouse has never heard of a state ID, which is a photo ID for people who don't drive a car (Indiana offers them for free). Maybe she just forgot, LOL. Or maybe she's full of....well, you know. And who are these people who supposedly don't have ID's ? Do they really exist ? Greenhouse cites the elderly, the poor, and the disabled. I never met an elderly or disabled person in my life who doesn't have ID. They usually have LOTS of ID, unless Greenhouse is talking about people who are severely mentally disabled. Then she may have a point, but I don't think those folks are really flocking to the polls. Even if they are, they need a companion to guide them through the process, and that companion can bring the ID. That leaves the poor. Are there legions of poor people who are engaged enough in the political process to get out and vote, but not engaged enough to get an ID ? I seriously doubt it. A photo ID is pretty important these days for all manner of things apart from voting. I doubt you can even get food stamps without one.
The other non-argument argument Greenhouse throws out is that voter fraud isn't a big enough problem to justify a remedy like voter ID. She attempts to portray voter ID as suppressing the individual vote, which is specious, and then uses that to say the state interest to protect against voter fraud isn't compelling enough to override it. The first time I heard this tactic from the left, I thought my head was going to explode. They've been telling us for 7 years that Bush stole presidential elections, but now they do a complete 180 degree turn and say voter fraud is no biggie, all because it's the convenient position for them to take at the moment. Such hypocritical statements belong in the political Hall Of Shame.
So, Greenhouse and the left's objections to voter ID law are a sham. They are a mirage to distract from the truth (like so many of their other positions). You see, there ARE people in america who don't have valid photo ID's, and they ARE all part of the Democratic 'base'. Illegal aliens come immediately to mind. Convicted felons are another. They may have photo ID's, but they will be fake ID's. Liberals want to save these folks the time and trouble of getting that fake ID made up. That's pretty much what people like Greenhouse mean when they speak of the 'disparate impact' of voter ID legislation. Voter ID discriminates against CRIMINALS, and criminals apparently make up a big enough Democratic voter bloc for liberals to fight for. If they didn't, they wouldn't be making up all these phony arguments, would they ?