Posted by
Rhudd Draigiau on Friday, May 02, 2008 9:00:00 AM
Syndicated columnist DeWayne Wickham wrote a column "Voter photos make sense - but not the way it's done in Indiana" on May 2, 2008. He says he agrees that voters should show a photo ID. He just thinks that Indiana's law goes too far.
The Indiana law, upheld by the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision, requires a government issued photo id to vote, but also allows voters who don't have a photo id to cast a conditional vote and then verify their identity within 10 days. They are also allowed to avoid this requirement by swearing that they are indigent or have a religious reason for not being photographed. Wickham thinks that this is just to onerous.
According to him "It's hard to believe Indiana's Republican-controlled Legislature didn't tailor its law to suppress the votes of Democratic voters who are disproportionately poor and more likely than others to have a hard time meeting these requirements." So, the majority of Indiana's poor are Democrat. Why? For decades, the Democrats have been "championing" the poor, enacting more welfare laws to "help" the poor but which actually keep them poor. Poor Democrats should wake up and vote Republican so they can share in the prosperity enjoyed by Republicans.
To get back to the voter ID law, Wickham advocates a separate voter photo ID card that can supposedly be issued by portable card making machines. How would this be any better than a state issued driver's license or non-driver photo ID card? It seems that his objection to state issued ID's is the cost. So, who's going to pay for every voter registration office in every voter district in the country to implement voter photo IDs? The affluent Republican taxpayers, I guess.
But there also a problem when a voter moves to another voting district. They would have to a new voter photo ID which would be payed for by those affluent Republican taxpayers. With state issued IDs, all a person has to do is write their new address on the back of their ID; they don't need to have a new ID issued unless they requested and paid for one. (That's how it works in NY anyway.) Besides, even if portable card machines were used, wouldn't a voter still be required to prove his or her identity and U.S. citizenship? I guess not; after all, the Democrats want to allow anyone to vote regardless of their status as citizens.
Wickman is just spouting typical Democrat logic (or, rather, illogic).
Update 5/6/2008
Today's Washington Times published an editorial by Bruce Fein who is supposedly a constitutional lawyer. He chides Congress and state legislatures of being ignorant of the Constitution. According to him:
"Most members of Congress and state legislatures, however, are ignorant of the
Constitution they are sworn to uphold. They generally are unable to distinguish
between the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, George Washington's
Farewell Address, and Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. Their knowledge of
freedom of speech, the Commerce Clause, habeas corpus, or separation of powers
is sophomoric. They do not appreciate that the Constitution nowhere mentions
political parties or hints that voting rules could be skewed for the sole
objective of favoring one party over another."
He is a bit confused by the Constitution himself. He also seems to be ignorant of the concept of "original intent." He claims that "The establishment clause of the First Amendment similarly prohibits laws
inspired to advance religion." It does not. The original intent of the Establishment Clause, according to our Founding Fathers, is to prevent Congress from establishing a national religion. He also parrots others who so often wrongly expound upon the "wall of separation between church and state" by forgetting that there is more to the Religious Freedom clause of the 1st Amendment: "Congress shall pass no laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
To get back to the issue of Indiana's voter photo id law, Mr. Fein would do well to recall a couple of other provisions of the Constitution.
Article 1, Section 4
The Times, Places, and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make of alter such Regulations, except as to the places of chusing Senators.
To put it in plain English, as if it isn't plain enough, each state makes its own laws regarding elections and only Congress, not the Supreme Court or any other Federal court, can change those laws.
Article II, Section 1, para 2
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress
Again, the Constitution makes it quite clear that each state legislature makes its own laws regarding elections.
Mr. Fein, just like Mr. Wickham, accuses Indiana's legislature of partisan politics. He also parrots the fact that the law disproportionately affects the poor, elderly, disabled and minority Democrats.