Voter Reform: Why Are Democrats Opposed To A Photo ID to Vote?
I am certain you all remember that night, that very, very long night in November 2000 when the presidential election stood in the balance in Gore versus Bush. And certainly we all will never forget the ensuing 36-day Florida election debacle involving the Supreme Court. It was the closest general election in history, and it involved voter fraud on an unimaginable scale.
Well, guess what? That's nothing new. Voter fraud has been alive and well in America for decades. It took an event like the 2000 Florida disaster to shed enough light on the subject that something is finally being done (hopefully).
The House has already passed a $2.6 billion elections bill, sponsored by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky that seeks to:
1. standardize voting machines;
2. create a national voting holiday; and
3. reduce or eliminate voter fraud.
The Senate has recently taken up the bill, which has now grown to $3.4 billion, but it has met with opposition from the Democrats. Now, you might think that is strange. Why would Democrats oppose a bill to clean up elections and prevent a repeat of the Florida morass? After all, it was their guy, Gore, who got the most popular votes, but still lost the election. You'd think they would be leading the charge!
The problem for the Democrats is the bill calls for voters to produce a photo ID in order to vote. We're NOT talking about a National ID Card here. Just a simple photo ID like your drivers license or anything that can identify you with a photo. The Democrats, at least many of them, are for a National ID Card, so what's the problem with a photo ID to vote?
We hate to say it, but a photo ID makes fraud extremely difficult. Democrats want to keep the current antiquated "signature verification" system, which makes fraud fairly simple. Why? Because the Democrats have benefitted greatly from voter fraud in the past.
A few of you may be thinking: Spencer is just spewing more ultra-right, biased rhetoric, but let's look at some historical examples.
Election 2000: In Wisconsin, local DNC operatives were bribing the homeless with cigarettes and beer to vote for Al Gore. In Missouri, a local Democratic judge forced the polls to remain open longer than allowed, a direct violation of federal election laws. In Florida, all of the voting counties in question were major Democratic strongholds. There were other examples, but you get the point.
Lets look at another notorious election, 1960. Kennedy won by carrying Illinois and Texas. It is widely known that Chicago mayor Bill Daley, Sr., with the help of Sam Giancana, delivered the state for Kennedy. While in Texas, "Landslide Lyndon" and Duval County did the rest. You know LBJ was fond of saying, "Hell, the dead have a right to vote too." And they did, every hour on the hour and in alphabetical order. But that's all history. Let's not be bitter.
The Democrats argue that the current voter reform bill will "disenfranchise" countless numbers of voters. How does requiring a simple photo ID disenfranchise someone? Perhaps because it prevents illegal aliens and dead people from voting!
Civil rights groups complain that these new measures will disenfranchise voters who don't have the proper documentation with them, and that it will effect poor and minority voters in a disproportionate manner. They conveniently fail to point out that these groups are big Democrat strongholds.
How do we respond? First of all voting is a sacred event that is not even allowed in over half the world. If you don't care enough to have the proper documents, like a drivers license, student ID, etc. when you go to the polls, too bad, in my opinion. And do you really believe that the poor and minorities don't already have some type of photo ID? Please! Have we already forgotten the Clinton-era motor-voter bill?
Another Democrat argument says that the bill is burdensome on states that vote by mail, such as Oregon and Washington. Hmm... Washington and Oregon almost always cast their combined 19 electoral votes for, you guessed it, the Democrats. Mail-in voting is riddled with fraud in a big way. Here is a great example. You may recall that Ms. Mabel Mackall Briscoe signed-up her three year-old Jack Russell Terrier, Holly, to vote through motor-voter registration. Thanks to motor-voter type programs, Mabel and her dog have been voting for years. So have untold numbers of fictitious voters. Folks, this has to stop! Let's respect and protect this precious right to vote.
On March 1st, it seemed that the voter reform bill was dead. The Democrats would not budge on signature verification. But on March 5th, Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat-Oregon no less, had some back bone and declared that the bill was not dead. Momentum resumed.
The Democrats have since come around, sort of. They have (as this is written) agreed to back-off on signature verification and to allow the photo ID, but not until 2004. Voters in Washington and Oregon will still be able to vote by mail, but they will have to provide a photo ID when registering.
The Republicans appear to be ready to go along. Nice break for the Dems! With their poll numbers looking as bad as they do today, and with a president who still has an 80% approval rating, the Dems are going to need all the votes they can get come November.
Is it too much to ask in this, the greatest of all democracies, the bastion of freedom and opportunity, that we have a fraud-free election process? I think not! America is an emblem of justice and our voting system needs to reflect that.
advisorlink.com
* * * |
