Now that the Republican government of Pennsylvania has disenfranchised three-quarters of a million citizens for the avowed purpose of enabling Mitt Romney to carry a state he’d otherwise have no chance in, some honest conservatives (yes, there are a few left) are getting queasy. Here’s James Joyner:
There’s essentially no evidence that significant numbers of people are engaging in the sort of voter fraud that would be preventable by requiring photo identification. Which means that we’re essentially disenfranchising large numbers of people to prevent something we’re pretty sure isn’t happening. Given that the people being disenfranchised are disproportionately from one political party and that the people pushing for these laws are almost entirely from the opposing political party, that’s problematic.
Yes, “problematic” is one word for this. There are others, some of them printable.
Joyner concentrates on the pain-in-the-butt of taking hours out a day to wrestle with the DMV. But that grossly understates the problem. To get a driver’s license, you need “verification of birth date and identity.” The Pennsylvania form lists two options: “birth certificate” and “other.” Not sure what “other” means, but getting a birth certificate if you don’t current have a photo ID can be somewhere between difficult and practically impossible.
You also need two proofs of residency. The options are: mortgage documents, lease agreements, W-2 form, tax records, current weapons permit, and current utility bills (water, gas, electric, cable). Cell phone bills don’t count. If you’re a recent high-school graduate without a job and couch-surfing, you’re not likely to have any of those.
Kevin Drum, who’s been making this point for a while, offers the most important summary chart as part of a collection:
As Joyner admits, voter ID was presented as the solution to a problem that doesn’t actually exist. (Kevin Drum has chapter and verse on this.) Denying the right to vote to a quarter of the black population might justify language a trifle stronger than “problematic.”
Voter ID is perhaps the most important of the current efforts to prevent voting, but it’s not the only one. Florida Republicans, who stole the 2000 election for George W. Bush before anyone had heard of a hanging chad by purging thousands of non-felons whose names resembled those of felons from the voter rolls, intends to pull the same trick this year with citizenship. Several states have cut back on early voting; combine that with providing too few machines in big urban minority precincts, and you can make voting impossible for the people whose votes you’re rather not count.
I caught some flak the other day for referring to today’s GOP as “enemies of the Republic.” But what would you call people who want to convert a temporary electoral victory into a permanent grip on power by denying their opponents the right to vote?
Is it time for a single federal criterion for voting rights? When a state can gerrymander it’s electorate, it’s an invitation disenfranchise folks by whatever means necessary.
‘Enemies of democracy’ might hit harder, and be understood by more people than “Enemies of the Republic.”
Yes, but I’m not a democrat, though I am a Democrat, and I am a republican, though I’m not a Republican. I know, it gets confusing.
“I know, it gets confusing.”
Ya think???
Seriously, irrespective of your semantics and/or labels, I think “enemy of democracy” is correct in its fundamental reference — “democracy” in everyday parlance equates to “citizens vote for their government,” while “republic” is not so neatly understood in everyday parlance, even though its dictionary definition may be similar.
Oops, sorry. I TRY to be Anonymous; I just sometimes forget to fill in my name. I really wish the software would prevent that.
Oh, good grief! I *never* try to be anonymous …etc.
The constitution guarantees the states a republican form of government. Madison defined a republic as what today we would call a representative democracy- the conservatives who distinguish between the two are illiterate, ignorant, or liars. There is no other alternative. That said, the federal government needs to put the stop to this immediately.
Extremism in the defense of extremism is no vice.
We moved to Florida in 2000. I used my NJ license to get my FL license at that time along with proof of residence. I renewed once online in Florida in 2006.
To renew in 2012, I had to present my birth certificate, my marriage certificate to show that I’m the same person as the female child named on my birth certificate, my current FL driver’s license and proof of residence. All these requirement were conveyed on a postcard with obviously small print. The postcard also announced that once one renews online one next has to present the above in person.
Why is all that evidence required? Is the Florida Republican administration/legislature trying to keep people from renewing driver’s licenses so they won’t have a picture ID?
As a sidenote: I say they’re discriminating against women, especially those who’ve been married more than once, per (multiple) marriage certificates. Even though I only had to present one, I say women are bearing the brunt of this scrutiny.
One of these days, the Dems will grow a spine and push back against the growing fascism.
Hahahaha! I crack me up sometimes.
Modaca, your hassles result from the federal Real ID Act, not anything the Florida legislature did. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act
It seems unlikely it’s just the Real ID Act – i’ve never had to go through those steps to renew my California driver’s license, and have been renewing online for since 2000.
I remember listening to Pat Buchanan telling Michael Savage how he’d get rid of voter registration in welfare offices.
And they wonder why we make the accusations we do.
Actually, I doubt Buchanan and Savage wonder about that. I think they’re pretty comfortable with their racism.