Long: Voter ID
All voters have some type of ID
By John Long
Long, director of the Salem Museum, is a Roanoke Times columnist.
Ever hear the old joke about the two poll workers going through a Chicago cemetery writing names in the voter rolls? One guy comes across the name Yevgenny Vladimirovich Dziewanowski on a tombstone. “I’m not trying to copy all of that. Go on to the next grave,” says one. The other grows indignant. “Listen, buddy, this is America. That dead Russian has as much right to vote as you do!”
March 15, 2012 - 8:01 AM
No, I never heard that stupid “old yarn” and it is not even funny.
Who has argued that any voter should not have to present ANY kind of ID? As usual, apparently it is not possible to be honest when an issue is not going to make your position look good. Virginia’s options for voter ID are not onerous now…but they were not fraud prone before either. There was no NEED for any change.
Believe it or not, not all voters without your particular acceptable ID are cashing checks at banks they have not always been a customer at, filing for aid or getting help from anyone.
I believe you conveniently misrepresent the problem Democrats had with this push to fix what is not broke. We objected because this was a move to disenfranchise voters but it has nothing to do with “who don’t typically vote Republican”. Many older people are more conservative and they do vote Republican. Do you not read polls either?
It is true that “the impoverished single mother, the elderly gentleman, the new voter from the lower levels of income,” as well as folks who move more often (renters), those who have trouble keeping up with paperwork, and those less socially “aware” are the “folks less likely to have a driver’s license or a passport”, who have every right to vote, have legally met the criteria to be a registered voter, who will be turned away from the polls. EVERYONE should have a problem with that. This is the same principle as Blackstone’s formulation on justice: “better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer” and better a fraud gets to vote than a legitimate voter does not feel welcome to vote.
I am not sure where you shop, but no, “in the normal course of life”, I do not show my driver’s license to write a check (many places you don’t even have to sign it), get a library card (got one online), or to buy beer (unless you look like a minor). Many of the people without a DMV issued ID do not “Try to get on an airplane”, or “get into some factories as a visitor”. And in answer to your question, “Why should the important act of voting require anything less?”, that is beyond simple. Jim Crow anyone? Electioneering anyone? Voter disenfranchisement anyone? And you claim to teach and know history?
It appears that YOU “miss a crucial fact”. Yes, these people ALREADY showed acceptable ID to register to vote and that should be sufficient. Until such time as two people show up to vote under the same name, there is no problem except in the heated minds of those who project fraud where none exists. Good thing a photo ID can’t be faked, huh?
#1 – “…there is no problem except in the heated minds of those who project fraud where none exists.”
You’re right, Sandi, there is no such thing as voting fraud.
Oh, wait: http://www.wowktv.com/story/17103621/wv-secretary-of-state-disappointed-by-voter-fraud-pleased-by-guilty-pleas
I think what has evoked such an impassioned response from other posters is the fact that Long has hit on a point that the anti-ID crowd didn’t want anyone to realize. People have to present an ID to REGISTER to vote. That means they do have one. That means bringing it with them on election day shouldn’t pose an undue burden. That kind of shoots the whole “this is a sinister plot to disenfranchise the poor and minorities” argument in the foot. The simple fact is, there is absolutely no legitimate reason not to require an ID in order to vote.
Again Michael, you link to a story about electioneering and corruption but it has NOTHING to do with voter ID.
#4 – And again, Sandi, you and the other Libs here claim that voter fraud doesn’t exist, yet deflect the truth when presented with facts.
We are not anti-ID, we are anti only allowing one specific ID. Virginia did not do that thanks to the efforts of the Dems.
“For decades, Virginia has required voters to provide a voter registration card, Social Security card, driver’s license, government-issued identification or photo ID from a private workplace. About 10 years ago, the state changed the law to allow people without an ID to vote as long as they signed a sworn statement attesting to their identity.
Under House and Senate bills passed this year, anyone without identification could cast only a provisional ballot. It would not be counted unless the voter provided identification — in person or via fax or e-mail — before election results were certified six days later. At the same time, the bills would expand the list of acceptable forms of identification to include a college ID, current utility bill, bank statement, or a government check or paycheck bearing the voter’s name and address.
…Virginia is one of 16 states that have a history of discrimination and must receive federal approval before changing voting laws”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/vas-new-voter-id-law-expected-to-face-less-opposition-from-doj-than-others/2012/03/13/gIQAhpyPES_story.html
AS I SAID: Virginia’s options for voter ID are not onerous now…but they were not fraud prone before either. There was no NEED for any change.
I did not say voter fraud “does not exist”. I said it was not proven to be worth the time or effort put into this legislation nor was the actual possibility of refusing a legally registered and eligible vote to be cast worth it.
The “facts” you presented had NOTHING to do with Virginia and NOTHING to do with voter ID, which I believe was the crux of the matter.