☰ Menu
Blog of Mass Destruction

Voter ID Revisited: The Nuns

By The Reverend Published: May 12, 2008


What does the conservative movement do when gay-bashing state referendums have already been used to arouse (pun intended) the more intolerant wing of the GOP to re-elect Mr. 28% in 2004?

Tough question, I know, but that's where Mr. Roberts and Stripsearch Sammy Alito come in. In a 6-3 Supremes ruling less than 10 days before the Indiana primary, the conservatively politicized Court ruled in favor of the Republican Party's 2008 initiative to suppress Democratic voters by instituting strict voter ID laws. All this without ONE Indiana voter fraud incident. Not even ONE.

The Roberts Court purposely fast tracked this horrendous voter suppression bill in hopes of helping out the GOP in the 2008 general election. Missouri, now, is seeking to implement an even more stringent voter suppression law, and like Indiana, masquerading that law with allegations of non-existent voter fraud. Oklahoma, just recently, along strict party lines, came within an eyelash of suppressing votes this fall as well. Voter ID laws are the 2008 model of the 2004 gay-bashing initiatives.

The Indiana case was so transparently politically biased and the timing of the Court's ruling so uncoincidental......the only conclusion reality based Americans can come to is that today's Supreme Court is now confusing the Republican Party's desires with the American people's desires.

How did the new Supremes approved Indiana voter ID law work out? The beta testing of this new voter suppression law worked swimmingly.....if you are of the Republican persuasion, that is. The new voter suppression law worked just as it was suppressed votes.

About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow bride of Christ because they didn't have state or federal identification bearing a photograph.

Sister Julie McGuire said she was forced to turn away her fellow sisters at Saint Mary's Convent in South Bend, across the street from the University of Notre Dame, because they had been told earlier that they would need such an ID to vote.

The nuns, all in their 80s or 90s, didn't get one but came to the precinct anyway.

"One came down this morning, and she was 98, and she said, 'I don't want to go do that,'" Sister McGuire said. Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives.

They weren't given provisional ballots because it would be impossible to get them to a motor vehicle branch and back in the 10-day time frame allotted by the law, Sister McGuire said. "You have to remember that some of these ladies don't walk well. They're in wheelchairs or on walkers or electric carts." Link

How ridiculous IS the new Indiana voter ID law? Glad you asked....

"Here's the supreme irony," Borkowski (a South Bend lawyer) said. "This law was passed supposedly to prevent and deter voter fraud, even though there was no real record of serious voter fraud in Indiana. Here you have a bunch of nuns whose votes can't be accepted by a bunch of nuns ... who live with them in the polling place in their convent because they don't have an ID." Link

What does the wingnut wing of the conservative movement have to say about all of this nonsense?

Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review infamy...

"My takeaway question: What were any Catholic sisters doing voting for either Clinton or Obama?" Link

Why helles belles, Lopez says, why are we concerning ourselves with the fact that votes were suppressed in Indiana? The question, according to Ms. Lopez, should be, how could Catholic nuns be voting for pro-choice candidates? A pitiful attempt to change the subject, if I've ever seen one.

But wingnuts can't leave well enough alone it seems....

"Catholic does mean taking seriously the Church's teaching on innocent human life, however. And Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should therefore both make Catholics pause for grave reasons." Link

See? The "pause for grave reasons" is not because elderly nuns weren't allowed to vote. Hell, to Lopez, that just proves the Roberts Court was correct in deciding to suppress Democratic votes.

"innocent human life". Not the "innocent" hundred thousand or so dead Iraqis we've killed. Not the hundreds of thousands of "innocents" McCain and his "there'll be more wars" thinking will lead to. No, none of those "innocent" lives.....just zygotes and fetuses.

I have an idea for wingers like Lopez and Democratic vote suppressers, like the Roberts Court. Fast track some crazy-ass case that argues Catholics can't vote for Democrats because Catholics voting for Democrats would cause confusion in the electorate. It won't help the GOP this year but just think of the possibilities in 2012.

UPDATE: Here's what Keith Ellison(D-MINN) says about the Indiana case:

A state may not restrict the right to vote unless it can show the harm it is seeking to prevent outweighs the harm it imposes on voters. Mere speculation that a harm may occur does not meet this standard. Rather, it must demonstrate specific evidence showing that the burden it is imposing on voters is directly related to a particular interest and that interest must outweigh the burden on voters. The Indiana law upheld by the Court does not meet this standard.

The court upheld a statute that it admits:

• Does not prevent the fraud it was intended to prevent.
• Is designed to prevent a type of fraud that does not exist.
• Does not prevent the fraud that is a documented problem in the state.
• Places an extra burden on the poor, minority, elderly and college voters in Indiana.

Indiana did not present any evidence that in-person voter fraud exists.

According to a June 2005 University of Wisconsin study, an estimated 23 percent of people aged 65 and over did not have a valid photo ID.



About This Blog

Prev Next