EDITORIAL: Call for caution on voter ID

Memphis Commercial Appeal ^ | 5/2/8 | Editor

[SmithL]

The Supreme Court's approval of the country's strictest election standards doesn't mean every state should adopt them -

The U.S. Supreme Court stamped its approval this week on Indiana's decision to require voters to show photo identification at the polls. Should Tennessee, Mississippi and Arkansas get in line?

Not necessarily. State lawmakers should always be concerned about the integrity of the ballot, decide what can reasonably and fairly be expected of voters and legislate accordingly.

But there is no federal mandate to adopt the photo ID, a solution that still seems to be in search of a problem.

In his dissenting opinion, Justice David H. Souter explained what was wrong with this legislation, and this ruling: There was no evidence of in-person voter impersonation in Indiana, he noted, and "very little" nationwide. "The interest in combating voter fraud," Souter noted, "has too often served as a cover for unnecessarily restrictive electoral rules."

A Tennessee photo ID law would not have prevented the only serious case of election fraud in the Mid-South in recent history.

The phony votes cast in a 2005 special election in state Senate District 29 in Memphis were the products of an inside job by election officials who manipulated the system.

Three poll workers apparently trying to throw the election to Ophelia Ford pleaded guilty to fraud in that case after faking at least three votes, two of which had been cast in the names of dead people. They wouldn't have had to produce any sort of ID to pull that one off.

Abuse of the system by voters, however, is practically nonexistent. The real issue with voter ID laws revolves around the perception that they discourage voting among older, poorer, mostly minority and mostly Democratic voters.

The Indiana photo ID law, one of the nation's toughest ballot protection statutes, was approved by Republicans on a strict, party-line vote. Concerns expressed recently about the protection of the ballot in Mississippi have come from the GOP side, as well.

Will such laws have a substantial effect on election outcomes? That seems unlikely, in an age when most voters can readily produce a photo ID.

In fact, it doesn't seem burdensome to require some form of identification at the polls. But the rules should be reasonable. Anything that discourages voter turnout or results in even a few legitimate voters not being able to exercise their rights on election day is harmful to the democracy.

In the South, fights over voter identification laws are too reminiscent of the bad old days of voter intimidation -- in the form of poll taxes, citizenship tests and the like -- that were clearly intended to discourage African-Americans from exercising their rights.

Overly strict voter identification laws are so divisive they are not really worth the fight, sapping energy from the real problems faced by lawmakers.

In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling, "Now we have a very clear roadmap for other states to follow," said Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita, a Republican. "We've been getting calls from 25 other states that have been waiting for a green light, waiting to proceed."

Surely with more serious problems to address, they would be better off to proceed with caution.

[SmithL]

The dead will always find a way to vote in Memphis.

[SmithL]

Ophelia Ping

[Yo-Yo]

The Supreme Court's approval of the country's strictest election standards doesn't mean every state should adopt them -

Well, yes actually, it does.

[L98Fiero]

That read almost word for word like a DNC press release.

[mgc1122]

Yeah, let’s not rush into FAIR HONEST ONE CITIZEN ONE VOTE elections now ...

/ rat mode

[Yankee]

The Indiana photo ID law, one of the nation's toughest ballot protection statutes, was approved by Republicans on a strict, party-line vote. Concerns expressed recently about the protection of the ballot in Mississippi have come from the GOP side, as well.

Well duh.

Maybe it is because their opponents, the Democrats, routinely register ineligible voters such as convicted felons, illegal aliens and even dead people, and bus other voters from polling place to polling place to cast multiple votes.

[rellimpank]

--the Denver Post had an even worse editorial on this a few days ago--the readers mostly set them straight-- ---http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_9098034?source=pop_section_opinion

[Yo-Yo]

The dead will always find a way to vote in Memphis.

If the dead can run for Senate in Missouri (Mel Carnahan,) then why shouldn't the dead be allowed to vote?

[null and void]

Ahhhhh, from Tennesee, the state that provided ID to terrorists...

Five Men with Mideast Ties Indicted in License Scam (Tennessee License Scandal)

TENN DRIVER LICENSE SCANDAL: FLAMING DEATH NO ACCIDENT, FBI SAYS

Car fire set off suspicions as crew fought it (Smith Tennesee License Scandal)

License suspect had WTC repair pass, but Port Authority did its own work [Tennessee License Scandal] The pass gave him access to the buildings' sprinkler systems. I bet he "fixed" them real good. Treason is not too strong a word.

...and is busy banging out license plates for as many illegal aliens as they can

Man charged with selling license plates to illegal immigrants

[Sgt_Schultze]

[varon]

The dead will always find a way to vote in Memphis.

Especially if they use the Death Certificate as ID ;-)

[iopscusa]

A slight historic ommission by this ignorant Editor:
It was the Dems/Dixiecrats with their enforcers the KKK, that fought to discourage African-Americans from exercising their rights. As usual the Republicans get no credit for their principled stand for the right to fair & honest Voting....please donot let these rasce baiters get away with their false history!

[weegee]

So why do I need to show an ID to get on a plane? The hijackers on 9-11 had IDs. Wouldn’t have stopped the hijacking.

And the guy who plotted to use chemical bombs carried on by passengers is dead but they’ll still throw out my toothpaste at the airport as I go through security.

The voter rolls are padded with people who no longer or never existed. They can get IDs to appear at the polls as all of those people, but for now they just need to get a card in the mail and anyone can walk into the polling center with that card.

[Niteranger68]

I tell my few Democrat friends that they better get to the polls early on election day or they might find out that I have voted for them. Talk about hissy fits.....

[VeniVidiVici]

Notice it is only left-wing, Democrat supporters that are howling about this.

It’s because they know their fraudulent voters just got blown away.

[Dilbert San Diego]

Well, I think what they mean is that the Supreme Court ruling doesn’t require that states have voter ID requirements. The ruling was that Indiana’s law was constitutional. Clearly this paper disagrees with the ruling and thinks other states shouldn’t adopt this type of law.

[count-your-change]

“Overly strict voter identification laws are so divisive they are not really worth the fight, sapping energy from the real problems faced by lawmakers.”
hmmmm....? Like staying out of jail per the “Tennessee Waltz” investigations?

[FastCoyote]

[The real issue with voter ID laws revolves around the perception that they discourage voting among older, poorer, mostly minority and mostly Democratic voters.]

Add in criminals, and the insane (who are mostly Democrats too) and I think we have a winner.

And no, I’m not a racist for leaving the minorities out, it’s the Democrats who have the plantation mentality.

[tet68]

Hmmmmmm.

In the South, fights over voter identification laws are too reminiscent of the bad old days of voter intimidation — in the form of poll taxes, citizenship tests and the like — that were clearly intended to discourage African-Americans from exercising their rights.

Those examples are what, a hundred years old or MORE!

[Yo-Yo]

Well, I think what they mean is that the Supreme Court ruling doesn’t require that states have voter ID requirements.

My interpretation was that the newspaper was opining that even though the Supreme Court said such ID laws were legal, it's not a good idea to have them.

I disagreed, and think all states should have a voter ID requirement.

[adorno]

State lawmakers should always be concerned about the integrity of the ballot, decide what can reasonably and fairly be expected of voters and legislate accordingly.

If integrity of the ballot and fairness for all voters are of the utmost concerns, then why would an editor even bother to raise any issues at all with a voter ID law? Very likely, that editor liked the status-quo were voter fraud could be used to undo the votes of those that didn't or wouldn't vote the way the editor or democrats wanted.

If integrity of elections is the issue, any kind of voter fraud at all puts that integrity into question immediately. Voter ID is just one of the perhaps many steps that need to be undertaken to assure the integrity of the vote. If an election can be turned in the opposite direction of what the real voters wished, then democracy is the loser. The outcome of an election that was won with fraud is not representative of the true wishes of the majority. If the majority's wishes can be overturned so easily by fraud, then it is in fact democracy that has been overturned.

That the editor can't see the benefits, then it is he that doesn't support democracy and the integrity of the vote.

[weegee]

One thing that is good about the electoral college system, it keeps us from having to do a national recount, county by crooked county.

If there are some irregularities and suspicious ballots, the poll in question can be investigated. If the vote isn’t close then there is no change to the outcome of the national results even in the event of obvious fraud.