Monday, March 12, 2012

Double Talk Duplicity

Ridden on an airline recently? How many times did you need to display a picture ID before you boarded? Opened a bank account? Did you need identification? Cash a check? Pick up a package at the post office? Drive a car?

You are required by a wide range of laws to present identification when requested by a lawful authority.

How about when exercising the most critical power bestowed upon citizens in a democracy? Shouldn't you be required to do something more than simply state to the election judge, "I'm Joe Bagadonutz"?

The counter-claim is that in this singular instance, the requirement for identification is discriminatory against minorities, the poor and the elderly.

What does it cost to get a state issued ID card even if you don't drive? They are free.

How do you claim medicare and Social Security if you are elderly without identifying yourself at some point with a valid ID and/or birth certificate? Did you never drive, get married, have children, buy a house or register for the military? How do you get old without anyone ever asking you to prove who you are?

What makes an ethnic minority any different than a Caucasian when it comes to being able to get your lazy butt down to the courthouse or driver's license bureau to get an ID card?

Now, take a look at this tortured reasoning:

DOJ Stops Texas From ID Check

Some of the math in that absolutely defies logic.
"According to the state's own data, a Hispanic registered voter is at least 46.5 percent, and potentially 120.0 percent, more likely than a non-Hispanic registered voter to lack this identification," Perez wrote.

In a binary situation you either do or do not have identification. How can you be more than 100% likely to not have identification? Does that mean you don't have ID more than someone who is only 100% likely to be without?

How did we let Jose register in the first place without identification? Does that sound like a version of an ACORN drive?


immagikman said...

Ed, the Democrats NEED those Illegal Alien votes to remain in power....and except for a very few places...Like Maryland they can't get ID's if they are illegal....Maryland however has a dont ask dont tell policy when it comes to issuing ID's and drivers licesnes. :P

LauraB said...

According to Trooper...he says you must have at least a state ID if not license within 60 days of residency and, yes, indigent can get them free. No excuses.

And, of course, the no ID is entirely and so overtly about stuffing the ballot box that I stand by my usual belief: it does not matter. Voting, I mean. It is broken bottom to the top.

FlyingBarrister said...

The most ironic thing about the judiciary and these voter ID legislation challenges is that many courthouses require all that enter show a picture ID. It is a uniform requirement to enter federal courthouses, and since Sept. 2001 many states have jumped on board. Most of the challenges to voter ID laws have been in federal court.

Thus, when the plaintiff(s) and attorney(s) go to the courthouse to argue motions on the purportedly overly burdensome requirement of showing ID to vote, they first have to show an ID to get into the courthouse to argue about it.

If a plaintiff does not have an ID and is thereby denied access to the courthouse and by extension the justice system, should they sue the judges and sheriff (or whichever agency provides security) for placing an undue burden on access to the courts? Many state constitutions provide a constitutional right of access to the courts.

If reporters have to have an ID to get into a courthouse to challenge a voter ID statute, should they sue the judge and sheriff for placing and undue burden on the First Amendment right to witness and report on judicial proceedings or the privileges and immunity clause to ply their trade?

What about attorneys and the privileges and immunities clause protection to ply their trade?

If a bystander citizen has to show an ID to get into the courthouse to watch arguments on a motion in a voter ID suit, should he or she sue because it is an undue burden on access to the court to exercise the right of viewing public proceedings?

The courts really don't need to see an ID, all they really need to know that the persons entering are not armed and dangerous to people within the building. But they require an ID anyway. Courts typically do not keep a log of who enters and exits and they don't copy the ID's, they just look at them quickly and make entrants pass through a metal detector, scan any files or cases, and perhaps additional security measures.

FlyingBarrister said...

BTW, this dispute really is Bush's fault in part. He had the opportunity to allow the VRA to lapse but instead touted it and renewed it.