Voter ID Hysteria in Wisconsin
Wisconsin moonbat Joel McNally has a maddening little editorial in Madison's Capital Times today in which he compares Wisconsin's Voter ID bill to the civil rights struggles of the 50s and 60s. He writes:
If requiring photo IDs doesn't turn away enough minority voters, we can always go back to the dogs and fire hoses
Will someone please explain to me how requiring photo IDs at the polls is discriminatory against minorities? The facts say that it doesn't:
Some 120,000 of Wisconsin's 5 million residents do not have photo IDs, state officials estimate. Two-thirds of them are elderly people who no longer drive.
97.6% already have the IDs that would be required to vote. If anything, the Voter ID bill "discriminates" against the elderly, although they, along with the 40,000 or so non-elderly who lack identification can easily obtain a state ID for the whopping sum of $9.
But this is still too draconian for looney lefties like Joel McNally:
Republicans in Madison who are trying to throw up obstacles to disenfranchise minorities would not like to think of themselves as modern-day versions of the illiterate thugs who blew up black churches and murdered civil rights workers in the '50s and '60s.
For the most part, they may not be motivated by explicit racism. They are merely seeking petty political advantage. The end justifies the means just as it did four years ago when Florida officials blocked every minority vote they could to put into office a president who came in second nationally.
At the very least, Republicans who seek to add requirements to make voting more difficult for African Americans and Latinos display a callous lack of regard for the monumental struggle and the lives that were lost to win the vote for racial minorities.
It's so hard to comment on rhetoric like this because it's so ridiculous, and frankly, it's insulting to these people that did actually struggle to obtain their god-given rights. It's one thing to be denied the right to vote because of your race, it's quite another to be denied the right to vote because you can't be bothered to get yourself some identification.
Voter ID opponents complain that some people can't afford the $9 or that the homeless won't be able to obtain an ID. While I'm sure that's true in some circumstances, then work to, for example:
- Write language in the bill that would allow a homeless person to get a state ID using the address of a shelter and the testimony of a social worker
- Start charitable organizations whose sole purpose would be to pay for IDs for the poor
- Organize carpools for seniors to the DMV so they too can get IDs.
But instead, these moonbats insist on demonizing those who are trying to guarantee that Wisconsinites get one, and only one, vote. Why is that? On one hand, I'm sure it's just another part of the ongoing effort to paint the GOP as racist. But, given the rampant voter fraud in heavily Democratic areas of Wisconsin last November, maybe, just maybe, there's a more sinister reason.
Posted by at April 30, 2005 04:48 PM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/874
|# May 1st, 2005 7:57 AM BrianH|
|"They are merely seeking petty political advantage."
The political advantage that they are seeking is to eliminate voter fraud. If people were only allowed to vote once, the Democrats would obviously loose elections...... Now that's petty.
|# May 1st, 2005 11:21 AM chummer|
|Great post. McNally is accusing Repubs of racism, when he is the one stereotyping minorities as being disproportionately incapable of having photo IDs. I have no idea how he can justify this idea. The loony lefties are flailing wildly! |
|# May 2nd, 2005 4:21 PM no2lefties|
|All right, let's cut the crap here...
Moonbats like Diamond Jim Doyle and Joel McNally oppose photo ID for voting because they know it will take away the Dems' ability to cheat at the polls. They know they can't win national elections unless they can pull up the busses full of bums voters in battleground states such as Wisconsin.
Problem is, they can't come right out and say it. So instead, they portray the supporters of photo ID as a bunch of bigoted, Bull Conner types who want to bring out the fire hoses and the dogs, bring back the poll tax, the literacy tests, and the good character tests, and strip people of their rights to vote once they reach retirement.
I got news for ya, McNally: the people of Wisconsin aren't as stupid as you think they are, and your arguments don't wash. We know what you're up to. We aren't forgetting about the people in Milwaukee registering under phony addresses and the lefties slashing the tires on Republican vans. But by all means, keep ranting. It will serve as motivation for those of us who give a damn about keeping our elections fair and honest.
|# May 6th, 2005 11:42 PM mbrlr|
|If Bull Connor had thought of voter ID, he would have liked it. Really.
My main concern about this is intimidation and cost, but perhaps those could be overcome, but those of you on the right do yourselves no favors when you say voter ID "will serve as motivation for those of us who give a damn about keeping our elections fair and honest." Please. Florida 2000.
|# May 7th, 2005 7:11 AM kris|
you seem like a smart guy, so you undoubtably know that all recounts after the election showed that Bush won Florida. You also know, even if you won't admit it, that the Dems were going to recount those votes down there UNTIL they found a method that would give Gore the win and they weren't going to get there by "counting all the votes".
when you say things like 'remember Florida', all you're doing is throwing your lot in with the moonbats.
|# May 7th, 2005 8:36 AM BrianH|
Why is it intimidation to ask EVERYONE for a state issued ID when they vote? ID's are required for many things, like buying a beer at the local tap. That's not considered intimidation.
The cost issue is easily overcome. Most states that have passed voter ID laws have included a free ID provision. I'm surprised Wisconsin didn't, but it's easy to add.
What is wrong with trying to eliminate voter fraud by providing a simple positive ID system? It's certainly better than just trying to match signatures.
Are you worried that you'll loose all the extra votes from those who register multiple times?
|# May 7th, 2005 10:07 AM mbrlr|
|Of course I'm not worried we'll lose extra votes. We don't vote multiple times now. The first Mayor Daley died a long time ago...
As for Florida 2000, the recounts of the official votes in the contested counties (Gore's tactical error) showed that, yes. The election was troublesome given the manner in which it was run by the state authorities, Republicans all. It was troublesome because of the documented intimidation of minority voters in many precints. And finally, due to the punchcard problems. Voting multiple times wasn't the real problem there. Oh, and did I mention the Supreme "Do This But Please Don't Quote This As Precedent" Court?
|# May 7th, 2005 10:37 AM BrianH|
|"We don't vote multiple times now. The first Mayor Daley died a long time ago... "
And he's still active in Chicago politics.
The voter ID requirements are intended to make sure you don't vote more than once and are legally entitled to vote that one time.
"The election was troublesome given the manner in which it was run by the state authorities, Republicans all."
The biggest complaints were about the "butterfly ballot". Check the facts, the counties that were in dispute had Democrats who developed and approved the ballots. They had county election officials who were Democrats. If you want to blame the ballots, talk to THAT party.
|# May 7th, 2005 4:49 PM mbrlr|
|I apparently don't agree with you on much of anything, Brian, but it clearly comes through that you're a capital fellow.
Look at the entire history of the Florida election. Look at Gore's mistakes. Look at the folks running it down there and the really marvelous legal team Bush flew in to deal with challenges. And why did he object, btw? Ah, but that's in the past and what's past is past, right? Sure.
Back to the topic--IDs may be useful, but anything like that being proposed both nationally and in states is inherently suspect in our Republic. There had better be a really, really good plan in place to make sure this is done properly and fairly. Although this is just for elections, I guess I'm just a bit uneasy about the whole national ID craze the country's on right now. We didn't even do that during the Cold War of my youth.
|# May 8th, 2005 7:47 AM BrianH|
|Get real mbrlr,
We're talking about showing your drivers license or a state picture ID card to identify yourself when you vote. Not checking papers at the the state line, bus stations, train depots, or whenever the GRU wants to see them (though the same IDs are currently required to get on an airplane).
As for a "really, really good plan in place to make sure this is done properly and fairly". How about the following:
1. arrive at the polls
2. "Hello, what is your name?"
3. "Can I see your drivers license or ID Mr. Smith?"
4. Checks name and address against voter roles.
5. "OK, Mr. Smith, the voting booth is over there."
If you're worried about someone not being able to vote due to being mistakenly left off the voter roles, or a spelling error, or having just moved, or other problem. We already have contingent ballots. Give the person one, let him vote, then validate the ballot per normal procedures.