Thursday, December 15, 2011

One Person, One Vote - Unless You're A Democrat

Alright, boys and girls, today we're going to review that most fundamental of all democratic principles, the one most of us learned in our first civics course - the concept of one person, one vote.

Underlying that simple concept is the premise that the person casting the vote is a valid and legitimate member of the body politic, fully qualified to cast his or her ballot as part of the democratic process.

The question before us is how to determine the legitimacy of an individual seeking to vote. Several states have recently passed legislation stating that possession of a state-issued form of identification is not only acceptable, but required.

The obama administration and its usual coalition of out-of-touch leftist drones and clones are now voicing outrage that people must prove who they are in order to vote.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on Tuesday entered the turbulent political waters of voting rights, signaling that the Justice Department would be aggressive in reviewing new voting laws that civil rights advocates say will dampen minority participation in next year’s elections.
This is the same Eric Holder that saw no problem with thugs carrying clubs and hollering racial epithets while patrolling in front of polling places during the 2008 presidential election. Since the thugs were black instead of white, Holder didn't consider that voter intimidation.

Decrying a common-sense identification requirement is bad. Turning a blind - or racist - eye to blatant intimidation is worse. But the really scary thing is Holder's vision for the future.
Mr. Holder also laid out a case for replacing the “antiquated” voter registration system by automatically registering all eligible voters...
No potential for abuse there.
This year, more than a dozen states enacted new voting restrictions. For example, eight — Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin — imposed new laws requiring voters to present state-issued photo identification cards.
There is precedent regarding the legality of such laws. However, previous cases were decided on the basis of states vs. federal rights. Holder's position is that the Voting Rights Law - a federal law designed to protect the voting rights of minorities - trumps the equal-protection clause of the Constitution. I'm not a legal scholar, but I always thought the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. I guess that's no longer the case.

In 2008, the Supreme Court upheld an Indiana law requiring voters to present photo ID cards, ruling that the state’s interest in preventing fraud outweighed the burdens the law placed on voters. That case, however, was based on the Constitution’s equal-protection clause and did not address the different standards imposed by the Voting Rights Act.

In a 2009 case involving a Texas water board, the Supreme Court said that a key section of the Voting Rights Act, despite its “undeniable” historic importance, “now raises serious constitutional concerns” because it intrudes on states’ rights. However, it declined to strike down the law.
Another perspective:
Hans von Spakovsky, a scholar at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said Monday that Holder’s stance is driven by “ideology and politics.’’ He noted that courts have found laws requiring voter identification in Georgia and Indiana to be nondiscriminatory. “Georgia’s law has been in place for five years and not only did the turnout for African Americans not go down, it went up,’’ said von Spakovsky, a Justice Department official in the George W. Bush administration.

Holder said the laws could depress turnout for minorities, poor and elderly people and those with disabilities who would have difficulty securing valid identification documents. He rejected any notion of politics influencing Justice’s decisions on the new laws.

“We’re doing this in a very fair, apolitical way,’’ he said. “We don’t want anybody to think that there is a partisan component to anything we are doing.’’
Yeah, right. And obamacare will reduce health care costs, improve health care quality, and reduce the budget deficit.
Proponents of such restrictions — mostly Republicans — say they are necessary to prevent voter fraud that could cancel out the choices of legitimate participants. Opponents — mostly Democrats — say there is no evidence of meaningful levels of fraud...
No meaningful levels of fraud, huh? I guess it depends on what your definition of 'meaningful' is.
Never mind the fact that Mississippi NAACP leader Lessadolla Sowers was recently sentenced to 50 years in prison for vote fraud, that the now-defunct ACORN recently received the maximum fine possible for vote fraud by a Nevada judge or that Holder’s own Justice Department is accused of making a sweetheart settlement with members of the New Black Panther Party who were accused of voter intimidation in Philadelphia on Election Day 2008.

(Never mind that) "The chairman of the Indiana Democratic Party announced his resignation Monday, as investigators probe allegations of election fraud stemming from the 2008 Democratic presidential primary."

Dan Parker, who served for seven years, did not cite the scandal as a reason for his decision. But the uproar over possible fraud in a race for the White House has already claimed the job of one county Democratic Chairman, who sources say was forced out because of the allegations.

(Never mind that) Adolf Hitler and Mickey Mouse signatures will be counted in the effort to recall Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, so long as they are properly dated and bear a Wisconsin address.

The Government Accountability Board reviewing the petitions unanimously approved a plan that would allow questionable names to be counted if they are signed within the circulation dates and have a proper address...
In a delicious bit of irony and an outstanding example of hypocrisy, "As each person entered (to hear Holder talk) they were required to present their photo IDs in order to be allowed in to hear the speech."

Finally, a picture is worth a thousand words. Unions, of course, are huge supporters of the democrat party, and contribute millions if not billions of dollars to its campaign coffers.
As you’ll note in the photo below the union requires its own members to produce a photo ID in order to vote.
In America, one needs an ID to vote in a union election, buy liquor, drive a car, board an airplane, use a credit card and a slew of other things in our society. Yet, the Democratic party refuses to back the idea of requiring an ID to vote in state and federal elections under any circumstances. A sensible voter ID law that respects the rights of the poor, elderly, and minorities is a great idea. What are Democrats afraid of?


CharlieDelta said...

This is one of those topics that makes so much sense that it makes no sense to the (D)icks on the left. They always use the "minority and "elderly won't turn out to vote" sad song, but I've never heard their (bullshit and I'm sure hilarious) reasons why. And maybe I'm a little slow here, but how is asking for an I.D. to vote in an election at ANY level a violation of civil rights? WTF!!??

Nick Rowe said...

In California, all you need to register to vote is a UTILITY BILL to establish your legal residence and your SIGNATURE on the card affirming your eligibility to vote.

I'm legal, just ask me!

The election commissioner must verify each registration, but they have no reason to do so when most of the illegal aliens vote for Demon Rats.

Even in the blue state of California, elections are close enough for illegal aliens to flip the results.

CenTexTim said...

So that's how Jerry Brown got elected.