Jimmy Carter is Right

Rare is the day that I agree with Jimmy Carter on a topic. 

This, however, is that day.

Carter and James Baker III have written an op/ed about voter I.D.  This kinda says it all:

In the meantime, the Supreme Court can lead the way on the voter ID issue. It has the opportunity to inspire the states, our national leaders and the entire country to bridge the partisan divide on a matter that is important to our democracy. It can support voter ID laws that make it easy to vote but tough to cheat.

If we need ID to cash a check, get a cell phone, board a plane, etc., etc., surely one of our most precious rights should require identification, too.  But let us not make the requirements too difficult that people are disenfranchised for unfair reasons. 

Comments

[Greg]

You bring up some good points, but this voter fraud things leaves me with some obvious questions that no one has yet addressed. Since the Justice Department has reported that they could not find wide spread voter fraud that the proponents of these new laws are claiming, then what is the need for this? To bring my point home, here is what was written in a 2006 report prepared for the Federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC). The report stated this:

"there is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling place fraud, or at least much less than is claimed, including voter impersonation, 'dead' voters, non-citizen voting and felon voters."

Now your point is somewhat valid about check cashing and other things, but if there is no fraud being found, then why go to this and why now?

I also am curious because there has been little or nothing being done with the cases of voter disenfranchisement that has been documented? Why has there been no push on this? Could it be because those that are guilty have been more or less Republican? From voter caging, to jamming phone banks, to darn right voter intimidation this is a real problem that has yet to be addressed or resolved. It is my belief that these things are being brought about because those voting Democrat far exceed those that are voting Republican? When those that are voting Democrat far exceed those that are voting Republican, is it not obvious to wonder what is reasons behind this new voter fraud push?

[Peg]

I didn't realize that Jimmy Carter had moved into the ranks of Republicans....

Without voter ID, isn't it difficult to judge when there is and is not fraud? How easy is it to determine?

Make it free and easy to obtain. No "voter suppression" and more confidence in elections.

[Greg]

I did not believe I called Jimmy Carter a Republican. If I did, can you cite where I did? So let's deal with what I said, and not morph it into something else. The voter fraud that is being claimed has yet to be cited in any widespread measure anywhere. Please, if you can cite it, please do. Since I know you cannot support this claim with any facts, then what is the need for this? If the Justice Department and the Federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC) have yet to find any fraud that you claim is going on, then again why go through this?

The Brennan Center for Justice (not a think tank, but a non-partisan Center at the New York University Law School) did a complete study into this issue. If you read any of the reports (why would anyone read something that might confirm they are wrong?) you might become more informed on the issues. The reports can be read here:

http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/analysis_reports/

But for those who care not to read any of the reports let me illustrate the real reasons behind this. As reported in the Houston Chronicle, Royal Massey was quoted saying the following:

"believe that requiring photo IDs could cause enough of a dropoff in legitimate Democratic voting to add 3 percent to the Republican vote."

Pretty telling stuff? You might ask who is Royal Massey, well Massey was the former political director of the Republican Party of Texas. But it does not end here. Massey had a change of heart about these laws when it became clear that his 91 year old mother could not vote. Massey wrote this when it came to the voter ID law in Texas.

ROYAL MASSET: THE VOTER ID BILL WILL KILL MY MOTHER'S RIGHT TO VOTE(Long time Republican consultant debunks arguments behind Voter ID bill to be considered on House floor today)

"I was a big fan of voter ID until the federal government declared my mother Aimee dead. The reason I've not been heavily involved in the political arena for the last three years is because I've been taking care of my 91-year-old mother who is a complete invalid but is very much alive.

I found there was no way of proving her alive. Invalid 91 year olds do not have driver's licenses, passports, employment badges, gun permits & etc. Since I'm taking care of her in my home she has no bills with her name and address. I can't even get her a birth certificate since she lacks the ID necessary for a notary to verify. Under HB 218 my mother, who is a registered voter in Austin, cannot vote in Texas. Anyone who says all legal voters under this bill can vote doesn't know what he is talking about. And anyone who says that a lack of IDs won't discriminate against otherwise legal minority voters is lying.

I agree with David Dewhurst's comments that we should "ensure that we maximize the number of voters, which is all in our best interests, but that we limit our elections to American citizens. I can't imagine anyone who could be against that concept." I agree with David 100%. And if he is a man of intelligence and integrity he will not support HB 218 since it does the exact opposite of what he says he wants. HB 218 will lower voter turnout. There is no evidence on the record that non-American citizens have voted in past Texas elections in a manner that would have been stopped by HB 218.

[Peg]

Greg - once again, you were blaming Republicans for everything bad about this topic. So - I assumed you did not know Carter was a Democrat!! :)

Your example is silly. Of course this lady should be able to get ID. As the article states, laws that do not allow her to are bad - and should be declared unconstitutional.

As for all your "studies" about fraud occurring, two items. There is fraud; period. And - without the ID, it becomes far more difficult to detect the fraud. How do you know? What do you use to confirm it?

There are no good reasons not to have ID, provided that the provisions of no cost and easily accessibility are met. The examples you give do not provide this, ergo should fail.

B.T.W. - a black attorney (who plans to vote for Obama) that's a good friend of mine says we should have national ID. Seems like a good idea to me, too.

[Greg]

LOL, this is why I love writing on right wing sites. The logic used on them is lacking, and darn right humorous.

Let make this clear, I blame Republicans for voter caging, and voter suppression. Both of these claims they have admitted to doing on video and public record. I do not need to go any further, case is closed on that.

You make the claim that there is fraud, yet cannot cite any fraud anywhere. Amazing since I don't think I could of got out of college let alone out of high school writing papers with claims that I could not support, but that is getting away from the point. The fact is that neither The Department of Justice or Election Commission found the widespread fraud you claim, but you persist it is so. It is truly amazing that one would persist, yet is unable to document anything they claim.

As for the case I cited (something I note you never do) being silly. The case I used is fact. I didn't make it up. These claims come from the former political director of the Republican Party of Texas. Are you discrediting the source I used? Are you stating he is biased? The man tells the story how he was unable to get his mother the right to vote, and your response is that this is silly and she should of been allowed to vote. Problem is, despite Massey's former position and his connections, she was unable to vote. He went as far to state this:

"anyone who says that a lack of IDs won't discriminate against otherwise legal minority voters is lying."

then added:

"There is no evidence on the record that non-American citizens have voted in past Texas elections in a manner that would have been stopped by HB 218."

You wrote:
"There are no good reasons not to have ID, provided that the provisions of no cost and easily accessibility are met. The examples you give do not provide this, ergo should fail."

Here are the facts:

Most Americans have driver's licenses, and so they don't feel that it is a burden for them to obtain ID and to present it at the polls (assuming their IDs haven't been lost, stolen, or left at home). But a significant percentage of Americans-10-12% by most estimates-don't have photo IDs because they don't drive, travel abroad or otherwise use photo IDs to get by in their communities.

For those people who do not already have photo IDs, it can be a serious burden to obtain one. First, photo IDs cost money. In New York, for example, a driver's license costs over $50. And once you get a photo ID, you have to pay every few years to keep it current.

In addition to the direct costs of state-issued photo IDs, there are substantial indirect costs. You typically need to show ID to get photo ID. An applicant for a photo ID in Indiana, for example, has to present a certified birth certificate, a passport, naturalization papers, or a U.S. military or merchant marine photo ID. A birth certificate in Indiana costs $10 plus county fees; a U.S. passport costs $97; and replacement naturalization papers cost $380 and can take up to a year to obtain.

For those Americans least likely to have photo IDs-including poor people, senior citizens, and people with disabilities-the travel and time off needed to obtain those IDs can also pose considerable obstacles. This is especially true for the many Americans, like 92-year-old Mary Wayne Montgomery Eble in Indiana, who live far from a government office that issues IDs and have limited access to transportation. Ms. Eble lives in a rural county with no public transportation, 45 minutes away from the nearest state office that issues photo IDs, and one hour away from the place she would have to go to obtain a birth certificate. This is not uncommon. More than half of the counties in Georgia, for instance, don't have state ID offices.

It is not good enough to say, "most people have photo IDs." Universal suffrage isn't about most Americans being able to vote. It's about everyone who is eligible being able to vote.

Last point and I will leave you be. I wonder if Bill Clinton would of came up with the ideal of National I.D. what your response would be. For some reason the case would suddenly be different. It suddenly would be government over reaching. But this is only an assumption that I cannot prove. So with that I will drop this topic and move on. Have a great day, this has been interesting if not just darn right humorous.

[Peg]

Try this, Greg:

http://www.kpcnews.com/articles/2008/01/09/news/today/evening_star/doc478441f2313a5420740819.prt

[JFP]

Greg, instead of worrying about Republican dirty tricks, why don't you worry instead about why so many of us left the Democrats and went over to the Republicans? The Democrats had a solid majority on their side back in the 1960s, but they managed to alienate so many that they can't count on winning elections the way they used to.

When you have a solid majority, there's no way the other side can do enough dirty tricks to prevent you from winning.