Is voter identification the new Jim Crow?
By Kevin Holtsberry Posted in User Blogs — Comments (9) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
If there is one thing that drives me crazy about the Democrats in the Ohio State Senate it is their tendency to go overboard rhetorically on every issue.
It is no wonder they are a hopeless minority given their penchant for whining, playing the victim, and screaming corruption or suppression at every turn.
The latest example is a voter reform bill current being debated in Columbus. The bill, House Bill 3, is a large and complex bill, but one of the things it does in its current form is require identification in order to vote. If you register to vote by mail, and you don't provide the necessary form of identification at that time, then when you show up at the polls you would have to provide it in order to vote.
Now, one would think that a minimal attempt to insure that voters are who they say they are would be viewed as a prudent thing. Considering how little one can do these days without some form of id. Everything from cashing a check to getting a library card requires some sort of proof that you are who you say you are.
But when this simple idea is put out as a necessary step in voting the Democrats and their friends go ballistic. Last night Senate Democrats actually boycotted the final mark up in committee protesting what they said was as an "arrogant" attempt to disenfranchise voters. State Senator Teresa Fedor (D- Toledo) quipped that "They don't want our folks to vote." Wait, you might say. Doesn't the requirement apply to all voters? Well, yes. But you see this will disproportionately affect "the elderly, minority and underprivileged voters" and these are the Democrats "folks." Remember Republicans don't care about anybody except rich people.
Here is what is allowable as identification:
A copy of a current and valid photo identification or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the voter's name and address.
Does anyone else find it slightly condescending the Democrats like Teresa Fedor seem to think that poor people, minorities, and the elderly are incapable of meeting this minimal requirements? Do these people really go through life without any type of identification whatsoever? Who are these people who don't drive, don't pay utility bills, don't receive any government documents at all?
Interestingly enough, when a proposal was put forward to allow the last four digits of your social security number as a valid form of id, Jennifer Brunner (a former common pleas judge who is seeking the Democratic nomination for secretary of state in 2006) accused Republicans of encouraging identity theft! Get a load of this beautiful quote:
Ohioans, in order to exercise the most basic franchise of democracy-to vote-will be entrusting to their government-whose records are public-their most sensitive and private information, Ms. Brunner said.
Lord knows we can't trust the government with a portion of our government issued social security number!
But the testimony that really takes the cake comes from Stanley Miller, executive director of the Cleveland Branch of the NAACP:
The move to place unnecessary steps in the voting process brings to the fore the days of `Jim Crow' and the racist voting rules that required certain citizens to accurately report the number of stars in the sky or the number of beans in a jar, Mr. Miller said.
Lest you think Mr. Miller went a tad over-the-top in insinuating that having proper identification is the same as preventing blacks from voting by forcing them to attempt to "accurately report the number of stars in the sky or the number of beans in a jar," Mr. Miller quickly reassured the member of the committee:
We do not believe this body intends to try to take us back in time, but the lack of trust, and skepticism that exists today makes these types of changes tough to sell, he said.
It's not so much that Republicans are outright racists, you see, it is that they have been racists so much in the past that we can't trust them to implement election reforms with out unconsciously being racist. Requiring id isn't racists it just "brings to the fore" Jim Crow and racist laws.
Did the democrats sit down and make a rational argument about how voter fraud is not a significant enough problem to impose the hassle of identification at the polls? No. Instead, they scream disenfranchisement! The Republicans don't want "our folks" to vote!
This is the kind of thing that drives me crazy about the Democrats and their coalition of victims. They cry wolf or racism so much that it waters down the true history of this country. They exaggerate every issue as if it was a matter of life and death. To Jesse Jackson every other day is a new Selma and to Ohio Democrats every policy debate comes down to arrogant one party rule in Columbus or Republicans out to stick to the poor and elderly. They rant and they rave; they boycott and they protest; and they hold press conferences bemoaning everything under the sun.
But here is the reality. The Republicans have the votes. You can either take your seat at the table and make your voice heard as best you can (and despite their childish rhetoric there were Democrat amendments accepted at the committee hearing) or you can weep and moan and stage protests knowing it will change nothing. At some point the Democrats are going to have to grow up and figure out how to win some elections. The irony is that they call themselves Democrats but they have yet to face up to the cold hard fact that Republicans have done a better job at getting people elected. You know what they call that? Democracy.
- Normally I split my ticket, but this time I was so trembling with fury that this interloper was deciding whether to challenge my sacred right that I cast a straight ticket for the Democrats.
I have a very hard time believing that you normally split your ticket. Especially with all the "sacred right" rhetoric - who talks/writes like that?
And anyway, what made you so sure that the guy was a Republican? Which polling place was this? What's the name of the judge? Were Democrats prevented from doing the same? Did they not have observers at polling places (other than yours)? Is this the first partisan observers from both parties have been at polling places in Ohio? Is it not common practice in many places outside Ohio?
Be honest with yourself; you usually vote straight ticket Democrat but you want to feel like a "moderate" (which seems to have some sort of moral sheen to it) so you sought a reason, any reason to justify doing what you originally wanted to do.
In Arizona, you have to have a Government issued ID, drivers license, state issued ID card, passport or military ID in order to purchase alcohol or cigarettes. In any airport in the country you have to have one of those things to get on an airplane.
Voting is a sacred right. It is so important that we should require no less in terms of proof of identity to vote than we do to buy a beer.
Poor people who can't afford the ID? I have no problem (although it's stupid) setting up a fund to pay for ID's for the "poor". A state ID card costs $4.
...cash your welfare check anywhere without a state ID. I don't buy it.
It would be almost impossible to go through life without any form of ID, and you can get one for the price of a beer at a convience store, which even the homeless seem to have no trouble affording.
were a requirement as it is in Alabama the democrats would mobilize the voter registration ID drive and get the required documentation for their constituents. And those who say most democrat voters do have a valid form of ID are also correct. This leads to the obvious critique that the democrats have something else up their sleeve with movements like "same day registration" which is all probability would allow voter fraud. Crying "racist" is just a smoke screen for something that is making our elections closer than they should be. Georgia resisted the voter ID requirement, so I hope I passes in Ohio.
Since I've just moved to the People's Republic, I can tell you a little about the requirements for transfering an out-of-state license. You need four forms of identification:
- Your current valid license from out of state, which you may use as either proof of signature or date of birth, but not both. This must be a photo license, as far as I know.
- Proof of your date of birth, e.g., a birth certificate if you are using your old license as proof of signature.
- Proof of residence in the form of a utility bill or a rent statement, canceled check from a bank, etc.
- Social Security card.
When you sign up to get a new license you MUST also complete a form that asks you to register to vote, and you can choose Democrat, Republican or Independent/Undeclared. However, I do not yet know about the actual requirements to vote when you go to the booth -- as of yet.
It seems perverse to me that any state would require all these forms of ID in order to grant a new license to someone from out of state but even consider allowing people to vote without a commensurate level of identification.
Due to no voter identification in Mississippi, the dead vote.
I write like that, and it's not simply rhetoric as I believe it quite strongly.
I actually walked into the polling place intending to vote for Voinovich and a few other folks. As it turns out, he clearly needed no help, but I think he's a good and decent man and didn't have as much confidence in Fingerhut.
To be "honest" with myself is quite easy, being far better acquainted with what's in my head than you presume to be. And this was the first time in my life I voted a straight ticket. I infer the person at my polling place was Republican based on his remarks with others in line and the context of the Republicans fighting the court battle to place these folks. No, I didn't ask for ID, and there were Dems in some other places for all I know.
But I'd actually prefer no partisan observers at all, from either main party. I've no reason to think that the little old ladies volunteering aren't doing a decent job, and if there's any reason to believe that additional checks are needed, they can be done by duly appointed nonpartisan officials in accordance with law, rather than go sledding down this slippery slope of vigilante challenges and potential voter intimidation.
I scratch my head, too, at some of these objections, and I struggle to believe that it could affect more than a handful of people. Surely the comparisons are hyperbole.
But as an Ohio voter, I have some serious issues with the state's Republican party and its conduct at the polls. In the 2004 election, at the last minute before election day, they found a judge who ruled in favor of letting them station partisan observers in polling places.
When I went to vote, there was a vigilante from the Republican party, and no corresponding Democrat, flipping through papers listing voters and deciding whether to challenge my franchise. As I later found out, this was in direct violation of even the judge's ruling, which forbid such observers to bring any written materials or lists with them for screening purposes.
I was absolutely LIVID. The polling place is the temple of my civic religion as an American, and an election is a service in that faith. It is sacred ground, and having a partisan hack sitting beside the voter rolls and polling booths violates and desecrates the covenant of democracy in my view. Normally I split my ticket, but this time I was so trembling with fury that this interloper was deciding whether to challenge my sacred right that I cast a straight ticket for the Democrats. And every time in the future that I enter my civic temple and see a particular party pulling banana republic stunts, I will do so again.
So...I have no trouble with providing ID to prove my identity, and I'm especially willing to do so if it would mean in return that partisan vigilantes can be banned from polling places. Let's trade.