Voter ID Blah, Blah, Blah

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board once again comes out in favor of blocking measures to prevent voter fraud.

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.

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.

...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.

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.

...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?

The message, intended or not, is that some eligible people don't deserve the vote. That's unacceptable.

What a load!

The Board has made this argument before. Voter ID is a Republican scheme to disenfranchise people likely to vote for Democrats.

LAME!

The claim that an ID is out of reach for some American citizens is ridiculous.

Why are the libs so terrified of taking means to maintain the integrity of our elections?

The U.S. Supreme Court absolutely should side with the position that enables as many people as possible to vote.

BUT-- Those people must be eligible to vote. It's not too much to expect them to prove that they are eligible to participate and that they are casting one ballot per person.

The New York Times takes the same position on Voter IDs as the Journal Sentinel does.

From the early indications, Americans are feeling enthusiastic about their constitutionally guaranteed right to vote. The Supreme Court should encourage, not frustrate, that enthusiasm when it hears a challenge today to a harsh voter identification law adopted by Indiana. The law aims to be an anti-fraud measure, but its main impact will be to disenfranchise large numbers of registered voters. The court should not let it stand.

The idea of asking voters for ID may not sound unreasonable, but the devil is in the exclusionary details. Before the 2005 law, Indiana voters simply had to sign in at the polls and their signatures were compared to the ones on file. Now voters must present a current government-issued photo ID, generally a driver’s license.

The impact of that requirement falls unequally. Poor people, racial minorities and the elderly are especially unlikely to have driver’s licenses or other forms of ID required under the law.

This is BS.

The idea that there are large numbers of poor people, racial minorities, and elderly American citizens wandering around without photo IDs is nuts.

If a voter can get to the polls, that person can also manage to get a government-issued photo ID. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous.

This issue is a joke. It really is.

Every American has a stake in upholding the integrity of elections.

Are we to believe that the poor, minorities, and the elderly have less interest in preventing voter fraud than other Americans?

Are we to believe that they are so incompetent that they can't get an ID?

Talk about the soft bigotry of low expectations!