The vote suppression fraud

One of the things we will hear about a lot in 2012 is the supposed push to ‘suppress’ the minority vote by requiring voters to show valid ID. Those whose sole sources of news are left-leaning outlets like MoveOn, Huffington Post, Daily Kos, MSNBC, and so forth, may already believe there is such a ‘conspiracy’ underway to return us to the days of Jim Crow. That such utter balderdash is being accepted as truth by some intelligent people, along with the credulous, demonstrates the frightening power of propaganda. (These outlets are scrambling to smear the reputation and motives of black Democrats like Artur Davis who are not toeing the party line and have stepped forward to assert that voter fraud does indeed exist and that voter ID laws should be enacted.)

Attorney General Eric Holder, who was unconcerned about members of the New Black Panthers standing at the entrance to a Philadelphia polling place in 2008, armed with billy clubs and telling several voters that they were “about to be ruled by the black man, cracker,” is using his office to block South Carolina’s recently enacted voter ID law, in part on the basis that voter ID requirements cause hardship to the poor, even though the law provides free identification to anyone who needs it. Mr. Holder is apparently unconcerned, as well, that the Supreme Court has already ruled that voter ID laws are constitutional.

It really makes you wonder how we’ve gotten to such a place—where the idea that providing proof that you are a citizen who has the right to vote is being represented by one of our political parties and their allies in the media as not merely a grossly unfair hardship, but evidence of racism and nefarious intent by the other party. It’s mind-boggling. One can’t help but wonder if those people secretly are fine with the idea of an unfair election, as long as it goes their way.

To be perfectly clear, I am not claiming that the securing of valid ID isn’t more of a challenge for people who are poor or otherwise on the margins of society. But the difficulties involved are being vastly overblown, along with the numbers of those affected. Those Democrats who are genuinely concerned about it—as opposed to those who are fanning the flames of irrational hysteria in order to defeat reasonable voter ID requirements—will be out there canvassing to find the people who need a ride, or who need assistance to obtain the ID. The election is nearly a year away—there’s plenty of time for legal citizens who need to acquire ID to do so, and for those who think this is a problem to be out there remedying it. If the NAACP, for instance, is so concerned, why aren’t they organizing to locate the people who need assistance and providing it, instead of lobbying the United Nations to condemn laws passed by U.S. state legislatures as human rights abuses? It beggars belief.

The people who are trying to demagogue this issue are deliberately creating the impression that the laws various states are enacting make the process difficult, on purpose, to deter people, and that is simply not true, something a little open-minded investigation would make evident. The SC law is a good example—an objection always cited is cost, so the ID is free. It should also be instructive that the RI voter ID law was passed with the support of black Democrat legislators. (Media response to that is to ignore it or, again, to smear them.)

If there’s one thing people of good will, whatever their politics, should be able to agree on, it’s that elections should be honest. Only living, legal voters should be able to cast a vote, and they should be able to cast only one vote. By all means, every effort should be made to ensure that those who qualify for proof of voter eligibility but don’t have it, can get it with the least amount of trouble and at no expense if they can’t afford it. But the claim that _any_ burden of proof of eligibility is unfair—never mind abuse—doesn’t pass either the common sense test, or the smell test.