It’s been a while since I grabbed the chainsaw and pruned a Journtinel idiotorial, but I believe I’m still in practice. Besides, they made it so easy with their rabid, partisan opposition to voter ID, so let the fisking begin:
The U.S. Supreme Court will take up the issue of voter identification today. It should side with the position that enables as many people as possible to vote.
Translation – it should side with the theft of elections. To that, I say, “Foxtrot Tango Sierra.”
It should see the effort to impose voter ID as a transparent attempt by Republicans to dampen voter turnout by a segment of the electorate that tends to vote Democratic. Fraud – what supporters say a requirement to show photo ID when voting is intended to combat – simply isn’t such a problem that it demands this solution. Milwaukee’s election problems in 2004 were principally about resources and record-keeping, not about voter identification.
Translation – it’s more important that DhimmiRATs win by every means necessary than to have honest elections. Once again, I say, “Foxtrot Tango Sierra.”
Regarding Milwaukee’s problems, they’re systematic, and there is no willingness at any level to deal with the big problem. That, however, is no excuse to not deal with the smaller problem.
Today, the justices will consider an Indiana law that requires voters to produce a state ID or a passport before being allowed to cast a ballot. Most states allow some other form of identification – a utility bill or a bank statement, for instance.
A state ID isn’t exactly fool-proof (it does not state whether one is a US citizen, which is a requirement to exercise one’s right to vote), but at least it’s better than a no-picture utility bill/bank statement.
In Wisconsin, which has same-day registration, registered voters need not show any photo ID at the polls. But to register, they need to produce a document that shows they live in the ward or district in which they are voting. If they can’t provide a driver’s license number, they can, for instance, give the last four digits of their Social Security number. Or they can attest that they have none of that and still get to vote.
Which proves that Wisconsin is ripe for fraud. Considering that there is, outside of the soon-to-be-ousted US Attorney for Eastern Wisconsin, nobody willing to prosecute any level of fraud, it’s just going to get worse.
Surprise, Wisconsin traditionally ranks high among the states in voter turnout. That turnout, we suspect, is what proponents of voter ID are really targeting. Sure, that likely means opponents want to get more Democrats to the polls. But one direction could lead to fewer people voting and the other more. It’s that simple.
Oh, really? I can’t speak for anybody else that is part of the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (charter member here), but my goal is to make sure that every legitimately-cast vote is counted once and only once. By the way, thanks for admitting your goal of a permanent-‘Rat majority by every means available, Pimentel.
In Wisconsin, the Republican-controlled state Assembly has voted to put the matter of voter ID on the ballot as a constitutional amendment. The Democrat-controlled state Senate is unlikely to go along.
Gee, I wonder why. Is it that they’re afraid they can’t manufacture votes?
Indiana is among the strictest of the handful of states – Arizona, Georgia, Florida and Missouri – that enacted voter ID, though the state cannot produce much evidence of voter fraud of the kind that this law would erase. Yes, those who challenged the law could not produce anyone harmed by the law, but that was, they say, because they filed the suit before it went into effect. In the interim, they point to 32 legal voters whose votes could not be counted because of the law.
Simple math should convince the justices to overturn the Indiana law. About 10% – or 20 million voting age citizens – don’t have a driver’s license or passport.
Do we really want to go into the math game? I can just as easily point to dozens of people that would probably be alive if Wisconsin had a concealed-carry law.
So go get one is the usual retort. But cost (unless they’re free) and transportation to do that are obstacles for many. In any case, why would we want to provide any disincentive for those eligible to vote in the first place?
Given that they need IDs to get government welfare, cash those government checks, and generally participate in society, that’s a bunch of freshly-dumped Bravo Sierra. To counter the disincentive, why should government do absolutely, positively nothing to ensure the integrity of said vote?
The message, intended or not, is that some eligible people don’t deserve the vote. That’s unacceptable.
What is unacceptable is that those votes can easily be stolen because we refuse to allow any safeguards whatsoever.
Wisconsin may or may not be a permanent-‘Rat majority state. I want to find out honestly, not through stolen elections.
Comments Off on A transparent effort – to turn Wisconsin into Illinois
