SCOTUS Upholds ID to Vote Law
by Big Dog on Apr 28, 2008 at 20:54 Political
For the longest time Republicans have been trying to pass laws that require people to show an identification card prior to being allowed to vote. This has met with resistance from the ACLU and the Democratic Party, both of whom state that an ID requirement will make it harder for people to vote. The claim is that the poor and the elderly are not likely to have a driver’s license so they would not be able to vote. This is hogwash because there are many forms of identification that may be used.
Many states offer an identification card from the motor vehicle administration. It is a state provided ID and may be used for voting. The argument goes that the elderly and the poor, particularly minorities, do not have these IDs and they have no means to get them. Again, this is hogwash. First of all very few people are without an ID. People need them to board planes, to cash checks and to get into some state and federal buildings. People who get welfare or have food stamps have to provide ID to use those hand outs so trust me, they have an ID. Those who are complaining because they do not have one would certainly get one if the government said they would give $100 dollar bills to people with an ID. Ids are not hard to get and most people have them. Those poor minorities that the Democrats cry about need ID to cash welfare checks (or to open a bank account for the direct deposit).
The real reason that Democrats and the ACLU oppose IDs to vote is because requiring an ID reduces the amount of fraud that takes place. People cannot vote as another person because they must have a photo ID. ID requirements mean that dead Democrats will no longer be allowed to vote and which will be a novelty for cities like Chicago and Baltimore.
The ACLU and the Democrats oppose this because removing the ability to cheat drastically reduces the chance that liberals win office.
Today, the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s law requiring voters to show photo IDs at the polls. This is a common sense rule and does not conflict with the Constitution but the liberal idiots on the court were, of course, against the whole idea. Justice Souter wrote:
“Indiana’s ‘Voter ID Law’ threatens to impose nontrivial burdens on the voting right of tens of thousands of the State’s citizens,” wrote Souter, who predicted that “a significant percentage of those individuals are likely to be deterred from voting.” The Hill
He is, of course, wrong. I have already pointed out how the arguments against are wrong. I would also point out that these very liberals who say that we are imposing non trivial burdens on the voting rights of citizens have no objection to imposing non trivial burdens on the rights of people to keep and bear arms. If a person must show an ID to buy a gun and then go through a background check and this is seen as reasonable then why is it unreasonable to expect a person to show ID to vote?
I would like Justice Souter to explain this but he is preoccupied with his bout of rectal-cranial inversion.
What do you need an ID to do in this country?
- Apply for a passport
- Board an airplane
- Enter a federal building
- Open a bank account
- Buy alcohol
- Buy tobacco
- Cash a check
Certainly voting is more important than any of these things. Certainly our system of voting is important enough to be safeguarded from illegal activity.
The next important step will be for us to require proof of citizenship before one is allowed to register to vote. We have to prove it to get a job (which makes me wonder how so many ILLEGALS slip through the cracks) so proof of citizenship to register to vote only makes sense. The law says only citizens may vote so why not have a way of proving they are the only ones doing it?
One step at a time. This is the first and it is a good one.
Tags: democratic fraud, ID, requirement, Stop the ACLU, vote
At least something is happening. We are checked here in Texas, or at least I was, but they still have special lines for Mexicans who no habla english. Humm.
Old Soldiers last blog post..Internet Problems
Showing an ID is one thing, but proving you are a citizen? That’s going to far. 🙂
I find it funny how Democrats think it is an infringment on the right to vote for a person to prove they are who they say they are. Only on the left could that be an unfair burden. The vast right wing conspiracy must still be alive.
Steve Denniss last blog post..Supreme Court Rules States can Require Photo ID for Voting
I only think you should prove you are a citizen when you register to vote. In Maryland you can register when you get your driver’s license (Motor voter) so when Illegals come in and Maryland gives them a license (no questions asked) they are ushered to a desk where a lady asks if they want to register to vote. If they do, bam illegals voting.
If you had to have a birth certificate or some other ID to prove you are a citizen when you register then it would make things easier. We should treat this process as we do getting a passport.
A lot of people have fake ID’s. They can buy them online for less than 30.00 and these look real, feel real and are hard to detect as fraudulent. No documentation is needed to get one; a picture is all one needs, and the cash. This is why so many people my way are against a REAL ID law. I bought an online ID- and brought it to the local DMV to see if they noted anything suspicious. They didn’t…and the name on the ID was my FATHER’s. He was a MAN who died 20 yrs ago.
Ravens last blog post..Where’s teh Oil??
[…] [Discuss This Topic with Big Dog] Share This Article With Others: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages. […]
While not impossible, it is pretty hard to make fake IDs out of our licenses.
I am not in favor of the Real ID (though they would be tough to fake) but I am in favor of requiring an ID to vote. Your fake ID would have to match the name of a registered voter and would cut down on fraud.
Just as a side note, I had to have a picture ID at a doctor’s office (to use my medical insurance of course), to use my credit card, and even to rent a post office box. So what is the big deal with voting? I don’t think it’s too much to ask people to prove they are citizens either. I personally think one should have to provide such proof before receiving any benefits the government provides. I don’t believe illegals should be able to get licenses (and believe me MD MVA is shooting them out faster than you can imagine – they had to restrict the days foreigners can come in for paper review to receive a license due to extremely heavy backups and lines starting outside the MVA at dawn).
I know it may sound harsh but I think our country has come to the point where we need to make some adjustments to ensure our safety. I don’t see why that’s such a big problem – especially when it comes to voting.
[…] wrote about this [at my site] after the Supreme Court decision and I indicated that I thought a person should have to prove he […]