No! No! A thousand times no!
I'm convinced there is NOTHING that would get the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Editorial Board to back a photo ID requirement for voting in Wisconsin.
In spite of the revelation that voter registration workers employed by ACORN had submitted 200 to 300 fraudulent voter registration cards, the Board STILL will not back a photo ID measure to help ensure the integrity of Wisconsin elections.
Never fear! The new federal voter registration system is here!
Not surprisingly, some are using this incident as justification for requiring photo IDs. But as we've said before, this requirement risks disenfranchising a significant number of potential voters.
What's more, by all accounts, the new federal voter registration system should provide the most foolproof way to eliminate voter fraud.
Finally, it's worth noting once more that an investigation by U.S. Attorney Stephen Biskupic in 2004 concluded that there was no widespread voter fraud in Wisconsin.
Photo ID always was an over-the-top "cure." It appears even more so now.
I would like to know why the Board finds comfort in no "widespread voter fraud in Wisconsin."
What level of voter fraud does the Board find acceptable?
I also would like to know how the Board defines "a significant number of potential voters" supposedly at risk of disenfranchisement by a photo ID requirement.
Voter fraud isn't widespread but a photo ID requirment would bring about widespread disenfranchisement.
Sure.
The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees.
In a 6-3 ruling, the high court said an Indiana law requiring voters to show photo IDs at the polls - one of the strictest ID laws in the country - was constitutional.
A photo ID law is constitutional. It's not an over-the-top cure.
Why doesn't the board insist that showing a photo ID is an over-the-top cure when it comes to buying over-the-counter cold medicine?
2 comments:
Actually the Supreme Court ruling was not that strong. It left the door open for the law violating of individual rights, but was unwilling to do so hypothetically.
The biggest reason for the SC going along with the Indiana law is getting an ID is free. Compare that to Wisconsin where the cost could exceed $100.
Even though an ID is not required, it is a default voting insurance card. If your vote is challenged, the challenge stops immediately upon presenting an ID.
It seems to me groups like ACORN's time would be better spent assisting voters getting ID's than registering them in a same day registration state like Wisconsin.
While I do not agree with the conservatives on what an ID will solve, I do think something that is required to make a purchase, visit a museum, or even pick a child up at school, is not too cumbersome to vote.
What? $100?
Wisconsin was going to provide free photo IDs.
Post a Comment