Sad though it is to point out, nothing scares the left more than a serious effort to make sure only legal voters go to the polls.
And the New York Times – solidly on the left – is no exception.
The Times\’ lead editorial this morning is titled “Suppressing The Vote”. Here it is…in rust, with my comments in blue. Please read them both and decide for yourself who is making more sense (my apologies for the length of the post, but I don\’t know how to do this any other way):
Ifa federal judge\’s disappointingruling this week on a voter registration case is allowed tostand, state lawmakers around the country could well makeit harder for eligible citizens to register to vote in federal aswell as state elections. Howhard would it be for INeligible voters to vote? That\’s the realquestion, isn\’t it?
Stateofficials in Kansas and Arizona had sued the United States ElectionAssistance Commission for refusing to include their strictproof-of-citizenship requirements on the federal voter registrationform the commission prepares under the NationalVoter Registration Act, also known as the “motor voter” law. Yep.Good for them. It\’s about time.
Thefederal form requires only that voters state under oath that they arecitizens, and while the commission includes certain state-specificinstructions on the form, it denied the request by Kansas and Arizonabecause it found no evidence that noncitizens registering to vote wasa “significant problem” in either state. That\’sthe red herring of them all. If you don\’t require a valid ID, of course you won\’t haveevidence of voter fraud. You\’ve eliminated any way to get it. Thisdoes not mean there isn\’t any, it means there is no way to find it. Any number of illegal votes could be cast with impunity…and ifthere is no way to check their validity, there is no “evidence”. What a lame argument this is.
FederalDistrict Judge Eric Melgren ruledon Wednesday that the commission had acted “in excess of itsstatutory authority” because the federal law “has not pre-emptedstate laws” that require documents proving citizenship. Under theConstitution,states have the power to decide who may vote, while the federalgovernment has the final say in how, where and when voting occurs. Thefact that a federal judge acknowledging we have to abide by theconstitution is news, tells you a lot about howfar we\’ve sunk.
Butthe legal dispute should not distract anyone from recognizing theunderlying purpose of laws like these and their close relative, voterID laws. They are intended to keep eligible voters from thepolls. With a hat tip to Rep. Joe Wilson…you lie. These laws are intended tokeep ineligible voters from the polls. As I believe you are fully aware.
Republicanlawmakers who work to impose higher bars to voting – either throughproof-of-citizenship or voter ID laws – are well aware that many ofthose otherwise-eligible voters who struggle to come up with therequired documents, which include a birth certificate, passport ordriver\’s license, are morelikely to vote Democratic. Nowthe insults kick in. And, astonishingly, The Times editorial boardmembers don\’t even realize who they are insulting. They are saying, in somany words, that Democrats are less capable of obtaining voter IDs -which most voting-age people already have and, in any event, areavailable for free in every state requiring them – thannon-Democrats. Sometimes they even say it out loud, as Mike Turzai, the majorityleader in the Pennsylvania statehouse, didin 2012 when he bragged that the state\’s voter ID law was goingto “allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania.” Er,did it ever occur to you that his meaning was there would be fewerILLEGAL votes? Naaahhh.
Inrecent months, it seemed that judges werebeginning to see through the pretense of such laws, whoseproponents insist they are necessary to protect “electionintegrity” despite the lack of any significant evidence that voterfraud of any kind exists. There\’sthe “no voter fraud” lie again. The last refuge of people whodon\’t want any serious way to prevent it from occurring.
Inreality, as Judge Richard Posner of the United States Court ofAppeals for the Seventh Circuit wrotelast year about voter ID efforts, these laws are “now widelyregarded as a means of voter suppression rather than of fraudprevention.” Thatis a fraud all right. But the fraud is yours. When The Timeseditorializedlast year that that Judge Posner, whose 2007 ruling upheldvoter ID (and was subsequently upheld by the US SupremeCourt as well) had admitted “he had made a mistake”, JudgePosner responded by emphatically denying he had recanted his decision, and writing that one “innocuous” sentence was being pulled out ofcontext. Shame on you for knowing better, but tossing this lie into your editorial anyway.
Nevertheless,Judge Melgren accepted at face value the claim by Kansas and Arizonathat only “concrete proof of citizenship” can allow them todetermine whether a voter is eligible. He ignored the fact thatneither state had actually demonstrated that such proof was”necessary” to prevent fraud. Kansas officials identified at most21 noncitizens who had registered to vote, out of more than 1.76million registered voters in the state. The percentage of noncitizensalleged by Arizona to have registered improperly was similarlyminuscule. We have to go over this again? Ifyou don\’t ask for ID you can\’t show instances of voter fraud. Thelack of ID requirements, therefore, makes it open season for illegalvoting. Your argument is ridiculous.
Republican-controlledstate legislatures could respond to their aging, shrinking voter baseby appealing to a wider range of voters. Instead, they write offentire segments of the public and then try to keep them from thepolls, under the guise of battling fraud and illegal immigration. Thecourts have more than enough evidence by now, and they should seethis ruse for what it is. Well, well, well. We had to get to the last paragraph to find out what this editorial is reallyabout (as if we didn\’t know already). The Times disdains anddismisses Republicans, so voter ID must be a nefarious plot to “write offentire segments of the public”. What “entire segment” are wetalking about? Minorities? Most have valid ID and, according to thepolls most favor them as a voting requirement. The elderly? Sameanswer – most have them and most favor them. When you have to lieand obfuscate to make your point…you don\’t have one.
There you have it. Two points of view. Which one makes more sense? Do I have a point in calling this an idiotorial?
You decide.
===========================================
ONE FURTHER POINT: The Times\’ idiotorial reminds us that federal forms require nothing other than a person stating under oath that he/she is a citizen.
What do you think would happen if you or I walked into the lobby of the Times Building and tried to get in without showing a valid ID, just telling security that you were willing to affirm under oath you are who you say you are?
Do you think security would let you in, or escort you out?
You guessed it.
This means that the Times editorial board, in addition to everything else, is also a bunch of hypocrites. My apologies for not pointing it out in the original blog.
