« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Some intellectual honesty on voter ID laws

We are not a democracy.

I know that’s hard for most people to understand. I know we’ve been inculcated since the the Wilson Administration that we are a democracy. I know we were taught in American History class that World War I and World War II were about making the world “safe for democracy!” Well, those of us who were paying attention and not staring at Mary Sue Pelton’s training bra. (Okay maybe I was staring, too.)

The United States is a Republic. We use some tools of democracy in our Republic. The best known tool we use is voting. We vote in referendums. We vote on sales tax increases. We vote for local and state officials. And we vote for congressmen, senators and, in a roundabout way, for President.

To prevent fraud in elections, some states have enacted laws that require residents to present photo identification in order to vote. One of these states is the one I live in, Georgia. Some people are challenging the Constitutionality of this law and the laws in other states. Opponents argue that the law is discriminatory against minorities and poor people. It violates their “right to vote”.

What these opponents of the vote ID laws never tell you is striking: There is no right to vote.

“But the Fifteenth Amendment…!”

Nope. It only says you can’t be denied voting because of your race, color, or because you were once a slave. Ditto for women on number 19.

In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled, most famously in Bush v. Gore, that there is no right to vote. At the least, not in a Presidential election.

This doesn’t phase the liberals and race-baiters who demand these voter ID laws be overturned. They argue that such laws disenfranchise minority and poor voters, who may have a hard time getting an ID, who may be intimidated by the government bureaucracy or who may not be able to afford the cost of an ID.

I have two responses to this. First, the State of Georgia at least offers a free photographic identification card for non-drivers who need one. That should be enough, but my second comment is more complex:

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms, is an individual right, and more recently it ruled that said right is incorporated upon the states (that is, it’s not something the Fed has to follow but the states can ignore).

Yet, when I buy a gun, and in many states if I carry my gun with me, I must have a photographic identification card with me. My state-issued carry permit has my photograph on it. Some states even require a very difficult to acquire permit, for which I must prove cause for need, just to buy or own a gun.

So are these gun laws racist? Do they disenfranchise the poor? After all, liberals argue that requiring ID to vote disenfranchises minorities and the poor from their imaginary rights; isn’t the same true for the actual right to own a gun?

I’m waiting for the Georgia Democratic Party and all the other groups suing Georgia and all the other voter ID states to act. I’m waiting for them to file lawsuits against New York and other states that require hard-to-get permits to own a gun. I’m waiting for liberal policy groups to bring lawsuits against the United States government and its requirement that Americans have a photo ID when we fill out Form 4473 and get our NICS check.

Really, I’m just waiting for some intellectual honesty from the Left on this voter ID issue. I don’t expect to see it.

COMMENTS

  • commonsenseobserver

    Bush v. Gore was limited to the circumstances at that time…

    Though I agree with the core of this post, I do not understand how the Constitution does not protect voting… Sorry if I misunderstood this post.

    • Seedyrom

      Many dems confuse this as well as they do the same with drivers licenses. The privilege of voting can be taken away as can the so called right to drive. Most lefties are statists who seek command control over many such issues of government. Voting is granted by the state as well so only the US constitution grants rights. Your state created voting laws.

      Georgia is my home state too, the gop governor not only passed ID laws but Sonny Purdue also gave out free ID’s to shut the gaping pie holes, I mean dems.

      • Frederick

        Not “grants”.

        Rights are inate and the Constitution merely recognizes their existence and the duty of the government not to infringe upon them.

    • http://vikimason.com runnamuck

      I was interested to learn from the rabid liberals over at the Daily Kos that those of us who are in favor of Voter ID were stealing the rights of many. (My. My. They do get excited over on the leftern edge of the internet when somebody disagrees with them!) (And for the record, I’m a pleasant old granny. I would never describe myself as a troll but they disagree.)

      Here’s a bulletin. When, as happens often in my little southern town, dead people vote and sway our little elections where one or two votes can win or lose a race, they disenfranchise ME and every other voter who cast their ballot legally.

      Because I live in Mississippi where Eric Holder and the gang can still nix our new Voter ID law, we may never see a really honest election….particularly if Holder and his boss are around next year.

  • 6eorge Jetson

    make it to the local DMV?

    Curses! A little extra work of another trip for the GOTV folks.

    • checkmate2012

      I don’t recall that the Constitution says the states have to give someone a ride to the polls! At least in TX you can use you gun permit to vote- HA! Alas, the DOJ is after us too, just like your state. We will prevail in the end.

      Surveys show that states that have voter id laws have more minority voting than states that don’t. Which party is about discrimination?

      • commonsenseobserver

        I think that’s what absentee ballots are for. :P

  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …based on the claim that potential-voters “cannot obtain an acceptable ID because they lack birth certificates.”

    http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/state/lawsuit-seeks-to-overturn-pennsylvania-voter-id-law-633820/

    It should be noted that, one week prior to the PA-primary, last month, it was announced that an expired Driver’s License could serve in the stead of a birth certificate, when a Senior might apply for a photo-ID @ a Penn-DOT licensure office.

    *

    It would appear that the plaintiffs in this litigation

    • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

      notably “faze” should replace “phase”

    • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

      …as illustrated by this observation:

      “The new law does add ID requirements for issuing absentee ballots, which could have helped curb the abuses suspected in the 2007 race and documented in 1993.”

      http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20120503_Vote_fraud_targeted_by_new_Pa__voter_ID_law_no_longer_common.html

  • bobguzzardi

    fascinating. there is a clear right to bear arms in Pennsylvania’s constitution and photo ID is required to purchase a gun and there is no right to vote and, therefore, a requirement to produce ID, similar to that needed to buy a gun, would be, logically and Constitutionally defensible.

    well done,Frederick.

  • bobguzzardi

    Philadelphia election commissioners probe excessive vote counts April 17, 2012 Bob Warner, Inquirer Staff Writer Democratic Philadelphia City Commissioner Stephanie Singer and Republican Philadelphia City Al Schmidt lead the election overseers and are investigating “over votes” in Philadelphia.

    The Philadelphia City Commissioners oversee voting and enforce voting laws.

    Both Dr. Singer and Dr. Schmidt are PhDs and both are independent of their respective party leaderships.
    http://articles.philly.com/2012-04-17/news/31355840_1_voting-machine-voting-divisions-poll-workers

    See also, Pennsylvania Independent: Philly probes possible voter fraud as ID law takes effect 17 April 2012 http://paindependent.com/2012/04/philly-probes-possible-voter-fraud-as-id-law-takes-effect /

  • Rick_Caird

    I was always taught in high school that the state gives the right to vote. I can certainly understand the amendments that outlaw discrimination, but I have always maintained the voters right act is an unconstitutional infringement on the states. The Federal government had the right to sue over discrimination, but we now allow the DOJ to just announce, in the Southern States, they do not like the state’s voting procedures without having to defend their position in court. That is why so many of the voter id laws have been upheld in northern states, but the Southern states covered by the Voter’s Rights Act have to go to court to sustain their procedures if the DOJ objects.

    So, Holder’s complete politicization of the DOJ is such a disaster. Vote cheating is allowed if Holder believes it will help Democrats. Holder is the most corrupt Attorney General since Mitchell and maybe even further back.

  • hkjonus

    You point out in so many ways we vote directly on issues. Congressman, direct election, Senators, direct election, state propositions, direct vote, on and on and on. Seems the only last vestige left to support your Not a Democracy theory is the electoral college system and the winner take all states, and that only applies to the Presidential elections. Sorry, but by all measures this country is indeed a Democracy. Try again!

    • BA Cyclone

      The United States of America has been a republic since the Constitution was ratified.

      We have features of a democracy within the structures, but the government is still organized as a republic.

      You’d do well to educate yourself on the difference.

    • Frederick

      The United States is a Republic. We use some of the same tools as a democracy, including voting, but we are not a democracy. Until the early part of the 20th Century, we did not elect Senators, an we do not directly elect our President. Further, there are Constitutional provisions that pre-empt pure majority rule.

      No, we are not a democracy, and we should be damn happy that it’s so.

    • Seedyrom

      see it but the democracy story is an illusion cast by far left lunatics and corrupt media buffoons to push civil rights issues as to give more meaning to something they don’t even understand because most aren’t educated enough or they prefer the Wilson lie. No joke. You can google this info in a few nano seconds.

      You are a liberal, a quick read expose you as a buffoon for using “Tea Baggies” an for this link calling us “CONS” and calling Erick “desparate”

      Low class, that’s you!!!

      http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/05/02/since-seal-team-6-cant-rescue-the-economy-dont-get-distracted/#comment-182675
      Wow, are the Cons so scared and desperate about another 4 years of Obama that they need to write stuff about Seal Team 6? Either give the President some credit for killing Bin Laden, or dont give him some credit for it. But dont try to deflect from the fact that Obama was Commander in Chief when Seal Team 6 nailed him.

      Cons ought to look to the future and rebuild a more comprehensive base. The Tea Baggies and the Bible Belters, along with the Gay Bashers, White Sheeters and Wall Streeters just arent enough anymore to win an election. Plan long and go deep, I mean really deep like 2024 after President Hillary

    • Mike Ferguson

      which by the way I don’t believe is required for a “good education” anymore, we are a Democratic Representative Republic, which means that we elect Representatives to….well represent us and make decisions on our behalf. While those Representatives are elected in a democratic style vote the biggest difference in a true Democracy and our government is that voting is a privilege, otherwise everyone of age could vote. Your privilege to vote can be taken away if you commit a felony or are dishonorably discharged from the military.

      If we were a democracy we would be at the polls weekly because every issue would have to be voted on by the people and majority would rule and the egg heads in D.C. would only be there to come up with the things for us to vote on.

  • renny

    due to the Voting Rights Act, and the little o thinks he might take a North Carolina (again) if fraud is a major part of voting; otherwise, as we well know, the Dems. would not care about voting laws at all. My guess with unemployment by county in NC ranging from c. 8 (lowest)-20% (highest) is not going to be a winner for Dems. in the fall.

  • ConstitutionMan

    Frederick is right on. Voting is not a right and we are not a “democracy”
    no matter how hard and how long “democrats” have tried to bamboozle us.

    Except for federal constitutional amendments specifically prohibiting turning a voter away simply because of his/her race or simply for being a woman, the Constitution decrees that the determination of who may vote is left to each state legislature – not a birthright! Women, long before the 19th Amendment was ratified voted in many states, as did blacks. In fact, some women and blacks held federal elected offices!

    Call me contrarian, but I’m fine with a state legislature denying ANYONE (black, white, female, or male; gay, straight, or conflicted) the privilege (not right) of casting a vote if they do not produce a photo ID to prove they are indeed the registered voter in the poll book. Only frauds and cheats would have any objection. Just show the poll worker a photo ID, Dude!

    I understand that some states historically allowed only males to vote or required persons to own land to vote. These were possibly quite logical determinations (you decide) for the age and society – “State” – in which they were applied. They were not NECESSARILY simply outgrowths of racism or sexism.

    Amendment 19 did NOT give women the “right” to vote. It only made it illegal to deny a woman the vote SIMPLY because of gender. Not an insignificant distinction. In fact, I, for one, am open to some day disallowing females (and males) voting privileges if they receive substantial unearned “welfare” benefits or if they pay no income tax or if they have EVER been convicted of a felony (I have a deeply held conviction that criminals never, ever repay society for the costs we incur to arrest, convict, and board them for months or years). Should such citizens have an equal say in how governments operate and is FUNDED as do those who contribute to society and who foot the bill?

  • johninohio

    “Nope. [the Fifteenth Amendment] only says you can

    • Frederick

      …even if there is no government. Voting, by its very nature, requires government to exist in some form. The 15th only declares that a state can’t deny your “right” to vote on the basis of your race. It doesn’t declare that you actually have a right, but that if your state recognizes one, it can’t be denied for those reasons.

      As for the, “can’t they have it whatever way they want”, this would be true–if gun ownership weren’t guaranteed under the Second Amendment. Therefore, if a constitutuonally-recognized right can require an ID, a “right” not recognized by the Constitution can also require an ID. It’s not that it’s “one way or the other”. It’s that one has more gravitas, more recognition, more support than the other, and so can be used as a basis for measuring the requirements of the lesser.

      I actually want photo ID to buy a gun, because I don’t want criminals to buy them. However I also want voters to present ID to prevent fraud. Since the “right to vote” isn’t codified and the right to bear arms is, the fact that we are required to present ID to buy a gun means that requiring ID to vote is, by definition, not a violation of anyone’s Constitutional righta

      • johninohio

        The 15th Amendment: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

        The 19th Amendment: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

        Both of these refer to “the right of citizens”, presumably, ALL citizens. Nowhere is there a caveat that these prohibitions apply only in states where voting is deemed a right. And I know of no other place in the Constitution that makes a distinction in this regard.

        • Frederick

          A state can recognize a “right” without the Federal government doing so.

          What’s more, the Supreme Court has ruled that nowhere in the Constitution does that document recognize a right to vote. Hence my citation of Bush v. Gore. The ruling by the court was very specific: If your state recognizes a right to vote, then the 15th and 19th dictate you can’t be denied that right because of your race, gender or because you were once a slave.

          You can disagree all you like, but the truth is the truth.

          All of which obfuscates the original point: If you can be required to present ID to execute one Constitutional right, you can be required to present ID for any other right. Say I’m proved wrong and the Supremes recognize a right to vote. Throw out every statement I made about being a democracy and there being no right to vote. It doesn’t fundamentally undermine my argument, which is that if you can require ID to exercise one right, you can require ID to exercise any other right.

          • johninohio

            It’s merely the point that the Constitution doesn’t recognize a right to vote, and that the states are free to declare that there is no right to vote.

            As far as the SCOTUS being the last word on the subject, if that were always the case, then we conservatives are being very presumptuous in our insistence that Roe V Wade is unconstitutional. Or that the Kelo decision was unjust and unconstitutional.

            If it was true that states are free to not recognize voting as a right, then any state can do an end run on the 15th and 19th amendments just by declaring that voting is not a right in their state. Right? The Federal government can’t declare it to be a right in their state if the state doesn’t.

            Anyway, I won’t burden this comment section any further with my ignorance. Thanks for your patience.

          • Frederick

            The SCOTUS can err in its decision and later courts reverse decisions. It’s not easy, since our courts are built on the idea of common law and the use of precedent, but it’s possible.

            However, I happen to agree with their assessment. The Constitution, in my reading, only recognizes a right to vote if your state recognizes said right.

            I also don’t think voting should be universal. I don’t think someone who has never paid taxes should be able to decide how those taxes are spent (by picking leaders). But unfortunately, other Supreme Court decisions and the Voting Rights Act, among others, make it difficult to eliminate people from the voter rolls. Plus, such eliminations make it more difficult to protect the rights of non-voters from a majority. So I accept that voting is near-universal.

            But again, the salient point isn’t that voting isn’t a right. It’s that if one right can be restricted with the use of photo ID (especially an expressly affirmed right), so can another.

  • keepcoolwithcoolidge

    A good friend of mine, who admittedly has “never voted before” asked me how many times I voted during the day. He seemed a little confused when i explained that everyone can only vote once.

  • http://pocketchangeproductions.net/ anotherindyfilmguy

    Let me get this straight:
    The left needs voters who are “incapable” of getting a picture I.D. with several months head start on filling that need?

    So… if someone is inept enough that in this day and age they lack the most basic I.D. needed to open a bank account or get a store rewards card the left wants to make sure they can vote?

    Smacks of utter panic and desperation…

    Of course it could also derail people from just walking in and voting for the dead by giving the deceased’s name and voting in their stead etc but then it might be a bit cynical of me to think taking away that election time pastime is what this is really about…

  • davenj1

    identification is supposedly required for a credit card transaction, but not to vote? After Indiana passed voter ID legislation (upheld by the Supreme Court, incidentally), why did voter turn out increase?
    Liberals decry decisions like Citizens United because banning corporate money removes the perception of corruption, yet they don’t support voter ID laws which would remove the perception of voter fraud.

  • http://vikimason.com runnamuck

    I went to the bank last week and conducted a little observational experiment. I watched for about a half hour as people of all stripes went to tellers and conducted their business. You should know that I live in a town in which the majority of the population is black and probably poor.

    In the time I was there, nobody had any trouble cashing their checks or withdrawing money. Of course they had identification and did not hesitate to produce it. So what’s the problem?? Here’s a hint. There isn’t one unless you want to steal elections.

    • Frederick

      N/t

  • Pingback: mehr...