Alec Jacobs, Guest Columnist
Ideology: Very Conservative
There is quite a bit wrong with Tyler Bilbo’s post regarding photo identification required at the voting booth.
First, let me refute his claim that high voter turnout “spells disaster” for conservatism in America. A recent Gallup poll found that 45% of Americans consider themselves conservative, 21% liberal, and the rest moderate. According to these latest poll numbers from Gallup, high voter turnout would, instead, signal a new beginning for conservatism in America.
But to the main point of Bilbo’s post: photo identification as a requirement for voting. First, Bilbo claims that the poor (which he equates with minorities, an interesting assumption coming from someone who represents the supposed party of tolerance) won’t be able to afford state-issued photo identification. A ten second Google search yielded some interesting results. Some states, like Indiana and Georgia already have this requirement for voting, and provide identification free of charge. Other states, like Pennsylvania and New York (both run by Democrats), charge a whopping one time charge of nine to 14 dollars for an identification card which lasts for ten years. Identification is readily available to the poor for little to no cost. But surely Obama, who had no problem subsidizing high definition television in the midst of one of the fiercest economic crises we’ve ever faced, wouldn’t have a problem providing photo identification to prevent voter fraud…right?
Wrong. Because Democrats love voter fraud! Take a look at ACORN. Bilbo slyly avoided any mention of the fraudulent organization in his post, all while claiming that Republicans have painted a false picture of the voter fraud problem in our country. Can he explain how there is no voter fraud problem when ACORN submitted thousands of illegitimate ballots, with the names of Disney characters and the deceased, many of which were counted for Obama? Of course not.
The problem is that Democrats are helped by voter fraud, and would vote down any measure to prevent it.
Great post, Alec! (send it to Annnnnn)
Very conservative? That is an understatement!
First of all, I do not equate minorities with being poor. I refer specifically to poor minority communities who, along with all poor people, would be disproportionately disenfranchised by such stringent voting requirements.
I did not mention ACORN because the constant demonization of the organization is an irrelevant distraction from the real issue of voter suppression. Here’s what would have to happen in order for “Donald Duck” or any improperly registered Disney character to cast a vote: Donald Duck’s registration card would go to the board of elections for approval. If the card somehow manages to clear that checkpoint, “Donald Duck” would have to show up at the polls and vote with some form of identification, especially if he is a first time voter. This would have to happen thousands of times in order for this to swing an election.
But enough about ACORN and the ridiculous slander against such a valiant organization. You claim that voter participation would remain unaffected among those who currently do not have a photo ID if such requirements were to pass. That is absurd. Voters still have to take the time to request a photo ID. For a desperately poor mother working 2 jobs with 4 kids, that time isn’t available. Not only does she have to request the photo ID, she has to locate the nearest Bureau of Motor Vehicles Branch, somehow get there (which would be especially difficult for someone who doesn’t drive) and get back to the house. The cost of that ID may not be in dollars but please don’t tell me that it isn’t costing this mother anything to get that unnecessary piece of identification.Furthermore, not all states that have proposed photo ID legislation provide for an I.D. that is of no charge to the voter. Here in my homestate of Oklahoma, the original photo I.D. bill in this past session would not have covered the charges for photo ID requests.
Even when these I.D’s are offered for free, the taxpayer is ultimately picking up the tab. In Oklahoma, free I.Ds would have cost upwards of one million dollars that our state does not have to combat fraud that is not happening. For a party that claims to be all about limiting government, these unnecessary requirements set up an unprecedented amount of red tape that voters have to cut through in order to simply cast a vote.
Q: What’s to the right of “very conservative”?
A: Fascist.
Fascism occurs when government gets too involved in business. does this notion ring any bells?
fascism is prevented by FREE market capitalism. socialism promotes fascism. free markets almost require antagonism between gov’t and business. any coziness between gov’t and business should scare all free men as much as theocracy.
Q: What is to the left of a very socialistic gov’t?
A: The Soviet Union (dead) and Cuba (barely breathing)
I am laughing out loud at your calling ACORN a “valiant organization” that has been slandered. If ACORN made up a SINGLE voter and attempted to register a SINGLE false name, it is wrong. If ACORN was registering fake Republican voters, you’d be having heart palpitations. But I wouldn’t expect anything less from a Democrat. As I said in the post, you guys are big fans of voter fraud. Anything to help your cause!
Such a sob story about the single mother with four kids and two jobs. Brought a tear to my eye. If she has the time to go cast her vote, she can find 10 minute to locate a DMV and have her picture taken to get an ID card. People should really have at least one government issued photo identification card just for general use anyway.
I’m astonished by your ignorance. It’s shocking that you actually believe that there is no voter fraud and that Republicans are trying to pass what is actually an innocent bill just to disenfranchise minority voters (which you actually did equate with the poor, check your post). The ignorance of liberals never ceases to amaze me. Never.
Also, I’d refer you to this study, which debunks most of the lie you made up about photo I.D. laws hindering voter participation:
http://www.heritage.org/research/legalissues/tst050509b.cfm
Oh, yeah, the Heritage Foundation. A totally reliable fundy wingnut organization. Who wants to bet they hire people who graduated from “Liberty” “University”?
Tyler,
I have to disagree that photo ID is a burden on the voter – especially if they are provided for free, as was the case in Indiana.
Here is what Justice John Paul Steves has to say regarding the constituionality of Photo ID: “For most voters who need them, the inconvenience of making a trip to the BMV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.” (http://www.heritage.org/research/legalissues/tst050509b.cfm)
DMVs are extremely accesibly by public transit (by law) and if the IDs are free – then whats the problem?
Now, the issue of taking up the single mother’s time poses a different problem. I have to say that taking up someone’s time is hardly an infringement on rights – infact it’s something the government seems to do very well. I have to say that I’m okay with the government requiring a citizen to do something that takes up their time but is in the interest of the State. For example, paying taxes takes up hours and hours of time but is in the interests of the state. Waiting in line to vote takes up time, but is in the interests of the state. Similarly protecting the integrity of the right to vote – with legitmate idenfitication – is in the interests of the state.
That being said, the IDs should be free, and should voter ID become the law, don’t think that ACORN and other groups concerned about inner-city populations won’t start bussing people to the DMV to get them to register the same way they bussed them to the polls to vote.
CJR
To “Question”
You can discredit heritage foundation all you want, but go ahead, discredit a supreme court justice.
Here is what Justice John Paul Steves has to say regarding the constituionality of Photo ID: “For most voters who need them, the inconvenience of making a trip to the BMV, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.” (http://www.heritage.org/research/legalissues/tst050509b.cfm)
You continue to conflate voter impersonation with registration fraud. Nevertheless, nearly every single one of those voter registration cards signed by the likes of “Donald Duck,” “Mickey Mouse” and “Casper the Friendly Ghost” were flagged by ACORN before they even got to the election board.
I’m not surprised that the Heritage Foundation is trumpeting the recent Missouri study of Indiana’s new photo ID requirement. The vast majority of comprehensive studies, however, conclude that ID requirements, that range from requiring general identifying documents to Indiana’s stringent insistence on a photo ID, suppress turnout among core Democratic constituencies. From a 2007 study conducted by researchers at Ohio State and Rutgers:
“In the states where voters were required to sign their names or present identifying documents like utility bills, blacks were 5.7 percent less likely to vote than in states where voters simply had to say their names.”
Before you accuse me of equating all black people with being poor, note that this study evaluated black people in general. And yes, per capita income for blacks is significantly lower than it is for whites.
You can be astonished by my alleged ignorance but I think I’m even more astonished by your lack of civility and the haughty tone of your writing. I’d appreciate a thoughtful response to the substance of my argument in place of an emotionally reflexive screed.
Conor,
I appreciate the thoughtful response. Unlike Justice Stevens, I’m not referring to the constitutionality of photo ID laws. My answer to that question might echo the quote you reference from Justice Stevens (I just simply havn’t examined such a question). What I’m arguing here is that photo ID laws are simply bad public policy. While they may not constitute a constitutionally significant burden for a particular voter, they are nonetheless a burden and unnecessary one in a country where only an inconsequential number of examples indicating voter impersonation occur.
” “In the states where voters were required to sign their names or present identifying documents like utility bills, blacks were 5.7 percent less likely to vote. ”
That is one of the oddest statistics I have ever seen. I’m not saying it’s wrong but it really doesn’t make any sense that presenting a bill or proof of address would make it less likely to vote. Perhaps it has more to do with the electoral culture of each state surveyed rather than the fact they have to produce an envelope, tax statement or ID?
Also, why not require someone to provide their social security card. They already have it, it’s proof of citizenship and places no burden on anyone except to keep track of a piece of paper.
CJR
I responded thoughtfully to your post in a post of my own.
Here’s a summary of my argument: Voter impersonation/fraud (whatever you want to call it, they’re the same thing) is an issue, and requiring photo identification (which is either free or cheap depending on your state) would be an effective way to prevent such problems.
Your only arguments against using identification are:
1) It is expensive and would place an economic burden on the poor. This is untrue.
2) It places another kind of non-economic burden on the poor. This is the case with many things in our democracy. Conor used the example of taxes. Sometimes, people have to grin and bear it.
3) The problem of voter fraud is either nonexistent, not big enough, or a myth created by Republicans. In my opinion, one instance of voter fraud is one too many.
It’s lame that I can’t make this its own post considering that it’s better than the one to which it responds, but…
Email me if you want the version with the links in it: o.hay.its.noah@gmail.com
There is quite a bit wrong with Alec Jacobs’ post regarding what he perceived as wrong with Tyler Bilbo’s post regarding the Republican Party.
Alec cites a recent Gallup poll in which 45% of Americans self-identified as conservative. Unfortunately for Alec, however, the use of self-identification of ideology has been widely discounted in the political science community as inaccurate — and the numbers of so-called moderates and conservatives are notoriously inflated, especially since the “naughty-fication” of the word “liberal” by the Republican Party.
Pretty much every statistic Alec cites is a sham. It wouldn’t be terribly difficult for me to portray a world, using polling data, in which Democrats dominate the political landscape of the United States. According to a New York Times/CBS poll, 72% of Americans support universal healthcare and nearly 60% of Americans would be willing to pay higher taxes in order to implement such a system. And, in fact, the Democrats have maintained a minimum of an 11% party-identification lead over the Republican Party for…well, as long as I can remember.
And as for Alec’s claim that higher voter turnout would sweep Republicans into office, well, let’s just take a glance at reality. In a rebuttal to the book What’s the Matter With Kansas, Columbia political science professor wrote One State, Two State, Red State, Blue State, in which he demonstrated — contrary to what the Republican Party might believe (though a refusal to accept reality seems to be a key part of their platform: see their positions on same-sex marriage, evolution, and global warming) — that there is a strong correlation between wealth and Republican party-identification. (insert image: http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/mlm/outcome1.png)
Why does it matter that poor people vote Democrat and rich people vote Republican? Because the wealthier you are, the more likely you are to vote. This means that, yes, folks, a 100% turnout would more likely lead to election results favoring the Democratic Party, which means that — gasp — the Democrats really have no need for voter fraud (leave that up to the GOP’s friends at Diebold).
So you have your statistics and I have mine, but yours are right and mine are wrong? I don’t think so.
But feel free to discuss the topic of the post, rather than nitpicking about statistics.
I like how you didn’t even try to rebut my comment.
It’s not just “your” stats versus “mine” — the statistics which I cite are actually far better indicators of how people actually feel about the issues, rather than loaded terms which can mean whatever someone wants them to.
You didn’t say anything substantive to rebut, besides “WAH ALEC’S STATISTICS ARE SKEWED BECAUSE HE IS A REPUBLICAN AND MINE ARE GOOD BECAUSE I AM A DEMOCRAT AND I SAY SO.”
But I did notice you you still haven’t addressed the topic of the post.
Hey, have you seen this news article?
New details about Michael Jackson’s Death Emerge
I was wondering if you were going to blog about this…
I didn’t address the main issue of the post because I don’t care and it’s a petty discussion that is essentially namecalling.
My statistics are better not because I’m a “Democrat” (lolincorrect) because I am a political science major and I have actually taken two classes about this exact sort of thing.
I’m a political communication major and have taken more than two classes on the subject…
So, by your logic, my statistics are better because I have taken more classes than you have.
Cool post, just subscribed.
That’s unfortunate, Alec, because you have clearly either not learned anything from those classes or have used them to manipulate the facts and present an incorrect reality than draw accurate conclusions.
Haha, I used one statistic to paint an accurate picture of the way the country is today. If you don’t want to accept reality, nobody can help you.
Alec — the United States may be conservative on one or two isolated issues, but the demonization of the word “liberal” has made many Americans claim to be, or believe they are, far more conservative than they actually are.