Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Voter ID

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 yesterday (Opinions here) that Indiana can require a photo ID for people to vote in their elections.

Some folks have equated this law to an unconstitutional poll tax, or as absurd as being the return of Jim Crow or a direct assault on the poor and elderly by Republicans conspiring to steal elections!

The hysteria doesn't seem to hold any water.

First of all, Indiana residents can get State issued ID cards for free. And even if there was a non-burdensome fee for it, it could hardly be argued to be unreasonable, and in no way be considered a "poll tax." In Illinois the residency verification typically involves a piece of canceled mail to your address with your name on it. Is the State forcing them to pay rent, buy a house, etc as some sort of massive poll tax? Of course not. Some places allow a library card to be used as proof of residency. Are we now going to call that a racist literacy test?

With Chicago's notorious history of voter fraud perhaps we should change our residency verification to a Cook County death certificate!

Some make the argument that requiring a photo ID like a drivers license or State issued ID card is generally just too much of a burden, and discriminatory against certain groups as a greater burden on them over others.

This just doesn't make much sense to a lot of folks, myself included. It's difficult to find any adult, young or old, rich or poor, that doesn't have one of these IDs. People need them to drive, buy various products, utilize many services, cash checks, etc. If I'm understanding the law correctly it would generally only apply to first time voters as well, so it seems highly unlikely that anyone is going to be knocked off the voter rolls over it, and thus whoever this law is disenfranchising, it might be difficult to find them.

So who will this law burden? First time voters who also don't drive and never use an ID for anything else in their daily lives. And Democrats think there's a great deal of these people out there who would otherwise vote for them? And that the Republicans also know this and that's why they're pushing for these kind of laws.

Do you know anyone in this situation, let alone some large segment of the population?

The only thing I can think of are illegal aliens. Not the poor, not the elderly, or legal voters generally.

As much as it seems that many people who are outraged about this law and this decision seem to have some good intentions to protect people they think will be discriminated against by it, the only folks who seem to really get burdened or blocked aren't the poor, minorities, or the elderly.

It's the illegals.

A vote of one illegal can effectively negate the vote of one citizen. This law and this decision help to stop or prevent that from happening.

No comments: