In the United States of America you have to have a photo ID to cash a check, get on an airplane, access a government building, open a bank account, buy a cell phone, and buy a house. You even have to show ID to the cop if he asks for it. The one thing you do not need an ID for is to cast a ballot in an election. In America it does not matter if you are not allowed to vote because they don’t check.
If the Democrats have their way it will remain like this. Democrats do not want to require ID to vote because, they claim, that it disenfranchises people and is equivalent to a poll tax.
The House yesterday passed legislation that would require voters to show a valid photo identification in federal elections over the overwhelming objections of Democrats who compared the bill to segregation-era measures aimed at disenfranchising Southern blacks.
The Federal Election Integrity Act was approved on a nearly party-line 228-196 vote. Republicans backed the bill 224-3, with three nonvoters; Democrats opposed it 192-4, with five nonvoters. They were joined in opposition by the House’s one independent member.
Requiring an ID does not place a burden on anyone. First, the people that they claim are homeless probably do not vote. Those who do vote probably have some form of photo ID. The poorest people in the country would be well off in most countries and they often own cell phones, more than one TV, and a nice car. Often, but not always. Those who are truly poor and on assistance should have some sort of ID to cash the government checks or use the assistance cards for food.
We can start this by looking at who registers to vote. If they register we can assume they want to do so and we can inform them they must have a photo ID. Those who really need one can go to the Motor Vehicle Administration and get an age of majority card. Perhaps the election folks can set some method up in which those without IDs can obtain one. In any event, it is not as bad as the Democrats make it sound and, quite frankly, they are disingenuous in their objections.
The Democrats do not want IDs required because dead people do not have one. Those who break the law by voting in the name of another (dead or alive or in prison) will no longer be able to do so and this will greatly affect the number of votes cast for Democrats. Democrats oppose this, in part, because it will affect ILLEGALS! They are upset that a law requiring us to check on who is voting will hurt those who are not allowed to vote.
But Democrats, siding with groups that work on behalf of minorities and illegal aliens, called the bill a “modern-day poll tax” and said it would place an insurmountable burden on voters and infringe upon their voting rights.
Rep. Brian Bilbray, California Republican, countered that the real infringement upon voting rights would be allowing fraudulent votes by the dead or illegal “to cancel out legitimate votes.”
“That is the violation of the Voters Rights Act that we have not addressed,” he told colleagues before the vote.
Democrats, who have long demanded reforms to the federal voting process, yesterday dismissed Republican concerns about voter fraud.“Show me the examples of the problem you’re trying to solve,” demanded Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer, Maryland Democrat who accused Republicans of trying to appeal to the “fear and — yes, perhaps — the prejudices of people.”
A Republican cited a study by Johns Hopkins University that found 1,500 dead people who had voted in recent elections. Mr. Hoyer belittled the study, saying no criminal convictions for voter fraud had been won in any of those cases.
Isn’t it interesting that Hoyer of Maryland says that there was no fraud because there were no convictions. So, can we now put to bed all the allegations about Florida 2000 and Ohio 2004? There were no convictions in those cases so we can say there was no fraud. It is amazing that the Democrats were harping about voter reform and when a legitimate reform method is proposed they object.
The Democrats are weak on this as they are on many positions. Voter ID would make the process more secure. They are as weak on this as they are on our national security.
Source:
Washington Times