« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Rhode Island and Voter ID

By: Soren Dayton (Diary)  |  October 10th, 2011 at 10:06 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Today, the New York Times has an editorial attacking so-called voter ID bills. According to Democratic and New York Times (but I repeat myself) mythmaking, voter ID is a racist Republican scheme to stop minorities and Democrats from voting:

Of course the Republicans passing these laws never acknowledge their real purpose, which is to turn away from the polls people who are more likely to vote Democratic, particularly the young, the poor, the elderly and minorities. They insist that laws requiring government identification cards to vote are only to protect the sanctity of the ballot from unscrupulous voters.

When I read this piece, I thought I might have missed a discussion of Rhode Island, which might be called an inconvenient truth for the Democratic conspiracy theorists. Let me remind you what happened in Rhode Island. As the Providence Journal noted when the bill passed:

This year, voter-ID legislation was backed by a coalition of Democrats and Republicans, including two prominent black lawmakers: House Speaker Gordon D. Fox and Sen. Harold M. Metts. Sen. Juan M. Pichardo, the first Latino elected to a Rhode Island Senate seat and the first Dominican-American elected to a state senate seat in the country, also supported it. Fox, Metts and Pichardo are Providence Democrats.

So the Democrat, African-American Speaker of the Rhode Island House, the leading African-American state Senator, and the first Dominican elected state Senator in the country all supported the bill. They are all Democrats.

I wonder what the New York Times explanation of why these Democrats and minority leaders supported a voter ID bill. And I wonder why the Grey Lady didn’t mention this dreaded provision passing in a deep, deep blue state like Rhode Island… Maybe it is just an inconvenient truth?

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • YnotNOW

    is that Democrats can support voter ID in a solid-blue state, because it will not threaten their hold on power. But in a “purple” state, it may affect their ability to “find” some votes and swing close elections.

    My response is always, someone voting illegally and cancelling out my vote has exactly the same effect as preventing me from voting.

    • acat

      a very blue city indeed .. does not support voter ID. Strongly opposes it, in fact.

      Why? So Cook County Dems can, as you said, “find” enough ballots in someones’ trunk to override the will of DeKalb and Litchfield farmers, not to mention collar-county soccer moms.

      I keep hoping that somehow, the Illinois GOP will grow a spine and challenge this.

      Mew

      • steve010

        as you might guess. after the 2000 election, gores lawyers challenged nearly all of the absentee ballots, so each county had to compare the signatures on the backs of the envelopes with the signature on file. Gores lawyers even hired handwriting experts. After the smoke cleared a close to equal number of bush/gore votes were disqualified. I think 5 more gore than bush.

        Absentee ballots are mailed only to the address of the registered voter. If the reg voter doesn’t get his absentee ballot some 20 days before the election, he/she can contact the supervisor of elections and they will track the ballot. The reg voter has to sign the back of the envelope to make the ballot valid and the signature has to match the signature they have on file (computerized). There has never been any evidence of tampering, or duplication or document forgery in 20 years.

        If the reg voter has a problem with the USPS, (but the delivery system doesn’t know who you voted for or if you are a dem or a rep, they might be destroying a ballot for their guy), like I do, you can hand deliver your ballots anytime to the elections office before the election. The ballots aren’t counted until election day.

  • bootwearinsmith

    that the hullabaloo over voter ID is just a farce, as they know that it could tip Pennslyvania and Ohio to Republicans. In RI, however, it won’t make a difference, so they don’t care.

    “The name’s Smith, and I wear boots.”

  • Next93

    …and it’s not the Republicans.

  • Scope

    was strictly a Democrat argument, I would hope that every red state, and every Republican Governor would push for this law to be enacted in their states. I remember reading not that long ago that there were some “conservatives” who were against Voter ID’s as they believed it would infringe on their privacy, and was just another way for the government to track them. So obviously their choice was to do nothing.

    As with every required document, such as driver’s licenses, there will always be false documents for sale, but it would absolutely cut down on the vast amount of voter fraud, perpetrated by ACORN and other liberal front groups. Anyone can pick up a utility bill from the dumpster, and use it to prove identity and residency, and that must stop.

    • Next93

      You’re already registered (or are registering), and they’re going to have a record that you voted. So you’ve already provided the government with that much information, which is basically the cost of casting a vote.

      Showing a photo ID is just an added step to confirm that you are who you say you are. I don’t see how any additional information has been provided to the government by doing this.

      • edintexas

        You mean to say that when I forget my Voter Registration post card (and there’s another potential for fraud – sending the voter ID document via a post card), and show my DL so they can check me against the roll print out, I’ve violated my privacy? Wow – who would have thought that?

        I’m big on privacy. I even refused to give my SSAN for voter registration. But claiming that showing a picture ID to match the face in front of the polling person with the name and address, and then the name and address to the Voter ID, or the printout at the polling place, is really off the wall.

        • steve010

          where I live, you go to the elections supervisor web site, click on send me an absentee ballot and 20 days before the election, I get the exact same ballot that I would have to wait in line for at the poll and show ID to some lame brain. I fill out the ballot, put it in the envelope, sign the back (very important) and mail it. what’s so hard about that? It doesn’t matter what kind of pigment you have in your skin to be able to do this. If you don’t have internet access, you can do it at the lieberry.

          • acat

            you’re not really a cat?

            The application here is obvious, what’s to prevent someone from faking it? Ordering a ballot in your name, your neighbors’ name, etc. etc. that is?

            What’s to stop your postal employee (especially in Chicago) from “losing” ballots form neighborhoods known to harbor Republicans?

            The point is, absentee ballots are intended to be a small part of the process, as the security (sanctity, in the old parlance) of the process is harder to ensure.

            Mew

  • vidyohs

    Of course it matters in Rhode Island, while it might not elect republicans, it will be a precedence for the passage of similar bills in other states, and that the looney left can not have.

    A Voter ID bill would mean the cemetery would have to remain neutral, dead, and non-democrat; and, trust me, there are a lot of votes in the cemetery.

    • Next93

      N/T

  • zipbags

    So I go to the article the above article references and read the comments. They are 99% against the Repubs for this. Saying its the only way they can win or they created dirty tricks. So I go to leave a comment referencing the RI law and surprising the NY times in NOT accepting anymore comments on the article. Their is only 59 comments. So its not like they are overrun with comments. I wonder if they saw that sites like Red State picked this up and were afraid us posters would comment on the truth. Thus defeating the articles intent of pushing a lie.

  • ss396

    When the issue is government behavior that Republicans find to be objectionable, such as public surveillance at a Tea Party rally, the leftist response is that if you’re not doing anything illegal, you shouldn’t have to worry.

    If registered voters’ ID is valid, they are not doing anything illegal so they shouldn’t have to worry.

  • Michael M. Keohane

    In 1856, The “Honest Ballot Association” was founded in New York State. The basic aim was to prevent the prevailing practices of such groups as the Tammany “shoulder-strikers.” These “shoulder-strikers,” on Election Day would ride from polling place to polling place on large freight wagons. The twenty to thirty “shoulder-strikers” would enter the polling place and declare themselves to be residents of that election district and demand to be allowed to vote. The election officials would be powerless to stop them. After 100 years, the Honest Ballot Association closed shop in 1956 because massive voter fraud no longer existed in New York State.

    Bad move!

  • renl57

    …when Dems convinced themselves that Bush had “stolen” the election by finagling the Florida recount, Dems were all hot to trot about reforming the election process to be sure that votes were properly counted. No doubt that’s why these particular Dems support voter ID.

    But now that Obama’s supporters realize that they can only win the 2012 election by stealing it, they don’t want to foreclose that option for themselves.

    One more point.

    Today, a young person has to show his ID to buy cigarettes. (Yes, the purpose of that really is to “discourage” underage Americans from buying cigarettes.)

    We have to show ID to board a commercial airliner. Some stores require me to show an ID to purchase merchandise with a credit card. My own hospital has just instituted a policy where I have to show my ID every time I go for treatment, even though every doctor and nurse and receptionist in the Nephrology department already knows me by my first name.

    Why is voting any different.

    After the 9-11 attack, the liberal Democrat and civil libertarian, Alan Dershowitz, drew the line as follows:

    “You have a right to privacy. But in this age we live in, you do not have a right to be anonymous.”

    • blcartwright

      about this subject, the person being interviewed, said in response to this exact question “none of those things are constitutional rights”.

      According to the 26th Amendment “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”

      You have to be a citizen, you have to be 18. So, not everyone who shows up at the polls has that constitutional right. How do we determine who does and doesn’t? Maybe we should have them register and then show ID when they vote!

      ps I drove over the mountain and my FM station went away, being replaced by a NPR station on this side, and I was too lazy to turn the dial.

    • edintexas

      Is truly sad. And the absolute reality is that it is almost impossible to be anonymous today. If one started out to be anonymous 30 or 40 years ago, and has no need for regular employment, it is still possible. But to start now? Not at all possible without being a “street person”. There aren’t many Ted Kaczinski’s out there (thank goodness),

      But it is kind of sad that if someone wishes to be rather anonymous, they find it almost impossible. A person should be able to interact with the government once each year, filing an income tax return (assuming gainful employment). Anything further should be at the person’s own volition. But the advent of computerization ended that possibility as every entity, government and non-governmental, worked diligently to accumulate every scrap of information on everyone who ever had anything to do with them, or might have something to do with them in the future.

      When I was a young man the IRS knew me by name and address only. SSA knew my SSAN, but was prohibited from revealing that number without legal action to force disclosure. And the Draft Board knew me by my name, address and Draft number (pre-lottery, obviously since IRS was only using name and address).

      If people are really opposed to government collection of personal data, they should oppose the War on Drugs (WOD), which really started the ball rolling on collecting financial information on everyone so aberrant transactions could be examined. And we won’t even get into civil forfeiture of property without criminal action (I don’t oppose this after criminal conviction, but do as a separate action without any criminal prosecution taking place).

      • edintexas

        I was dropped from the page and had to start again. On the second time around I forgot to include that I was commenting on the Dershowitz quote,

  • GregInFla

    to the libs.

  • politicalqrm

    get in the way of a story.

    The main reason (but unspoken) that the Dems are against showing ID to vote is because it interferes with voter fraud, which is a big part of Dem election tactics.

    I’ll bet the Dems that voted for this will find themselves in a primary challenge next election against an “approved” candidate.

  • redpenny

    to require ID at the polling place.Just too damn bad if the requirement may impose a bit of inconvience upon the laggards who scream the loudest.Forever and a day the rule as far as ID goes has been—NO tickee,No laundry!!

  • claylundy

    polling places have been abolished. It is all mail in balloting.

    I think the door is wide open for who knows what.

  • benko

    In the Chicago tradition…

  • surfcat50

    “particularly the young, the poor, the elderly and minorities.” They must be suggesting that such people are more likely to violate laws requiring government identification cards to vote that are designed to protect the sanctity of the ballot from unscrupulous voters.

    After all, generally it is Republicans that want to prevent ineligible voters from voting and the Democrats who run around screaming that it will inhibit these groups from voting.

    That’s rank discrimination to suggest that these groups are MORE likely than the general population to engage in such practices without any proof, isn’t it?

  • steve010

    Yesterday, I went into the state office here in FL to renew my DL. We are one of the few states that are complying with the Real ID Act of 2005. In order to renew your DL you have to produce a certified BC, ss card and two proofs of where you live. Cost of renewal $54. If you just want an ID card, $31.50. There is no provision if you are broke, homeless or can’t pay for the ID.

    FL has required picture ID for voting since the 2000 FUbar election, so we aren’t new to this controversy. Obama carried FL by 4.3% with an historic african-american, latino turnout, and yes, they all had picture ID.

    Now we could argue that the 54 dollar fee for the DL is a poll tax. It might even fly in the courts and will the requirement of Real ID hold down the minority vote? Yes, it will, because the illegal crowd will find it hard to obtain a state picture ID. But the Real ID act was championed first by DWS and other democrats, so I don’t think there is much room for blaming the (R)s for this requirement.

  • tncdel

    The main reason is that many states ALLOW ILLEGAL ALIENS TO VOTE.

    Please see this:
    http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/how-many-other-states-allow-illegal-aliens-to-vote-besides-illinois/question-1013153/