This editorial appeared today in the Mercury News, and it really
annoyed me.
Let’s start, shall we? The article begins right away with a clear
Democratic bias, portraying the laws requiring photo IDs to vote as “a
coordinated effort” making it sound like Republicans are all cold and
calculating, conspiring to eliminate opposing voters. It’s clear the editorial
is trying to rally voters against these measures, encouraging them to speak
out.
Requiring photo IDs to vote is logical, because having a photo ID
is required to drive a car or use a credit card, two very basic activities in
today’s society. To me, it seems fair that it is also required for voting. And
there are programs specifically for poorer people to get IDs. As to the claim
that the “stand your ground” and these laws are responding to nonexistent
threats, voter impersonation is very real. It’s hard to track and “numerous
studies” cannot always track it.
“In Texas, for example, a concealed
handgun license can be used as identification at the polls, but a student ID
can't.”
Just being enrolled in a school is
not enough to guarantee that you’re a legal citizen or not an impersonator. The
checks regarding a concealed handgun license are very deep, ensuring that you
are a safe individual and have no bad backgrounds. Therefore, this makes sense.
You think about it. Which of these is more likely to be a citizen who can
vote—someone enrolled in college or someone who can be trusted to hide a .38
ruger on their person?
The whole bit about Florida is
complete and utter nonsense. I don’t mean the part about Rick Scott, whom it
seems, tried to make a conscious effort to protect voter integrity. If it had
errors, it does not necessarily mean that it was an attempt to limit Democratic
voters.
Voter registration drives can often
be an opportunity to register illegally, because the event may or may not be
well organized enough to prevent this. Florida was trying to preserve voter
integrity. It was not Draconian.
Plenty of commenters have called out the Mercury News for
this editorial, and in the comments, I found this little gem.
If you are legally entitled
to vote, and find requiring ID, or doing a little prior planning to get the ID
if you don't have it already have it, presents insurmountable barriers to
voting . . . well, I'd like to see documentation of why and how it did so…
Horrible, politically
incorrect thought: if you're incapable of fulfilling the minimal requirements
of registering in time and presenting valid ID, you're just demonstrated your
inability to understand the issues at a level sufficient to cast a valid vote.
And possibly to walk and chew gum at the same time.
--Commentator Dana Crom
And this bit in a reader’s
letter:
In Third World countries
where people acquire the right to vote, people walk for miles in inclement
weather and stand in line for hours to vote: here people complain about just
having to prove who they are.
-Edgar Darwin from Santa Cruz
Amen to both of
you.
No comments:
Post a Comment