Once again, judges are tossing out the express wishes of the voters:
A federal judge in Milwaukee struck down Wisconsin’s voter identification law Tuesday, declaring that a requirement that voters show a state-issued photo ID at the polls imposes an unfair burden on poor and minority voters.
U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman sided with opponents of the law, who argued that low-income and minority voters aren’t as likely to have photo IDs or the documents needed to get them. Adelman said the law violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection…
Tuesday’s decision could set a precedent for similar legal challenges in Texas, North Carolina and elsewhere. There are 31 states with laws in effect requiring voters to show some form of identification, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Seven states have strict photo ID requirements similar to the one a state judge struck down in Arkansas last week; that decision has been appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court. Pennsylvania’s voter ID law has been put on hold because of court challenges.
Once again, we see the difference in approaching an issue with no consideration of “responsibilities.” Not one of these laws ‘disenfranchise’ (true definition: “legally bar from voting”) the elderly, the poor, or minority voters, despite the lucrative shrill claims of the SPLC and its fellow travelers. What it does is impose a responsibility commensurate to accessing that right, in the same way people who exercise their ‘right’ to drive must obtain a license to do so legally. Those who fail to do so are self-selecting for disqualification.
Let’s be frank here. No matter what the pundits quoted in the article say, VERY FEW people today can get by without having some form of the ID in question. And for those who do, a case could be made that they interact so little with modern society as it’s currently structured that they probably don’t have the familiarity with the issues to be voting anyway! The bottom line is this: if you can get yourself to the polls on election day, there’s no reason you can’t get yourself to the appropriate agency to obtain an ID. ‘Legislating from the bench’ to throw out these popular provisions to protect the integrity of our electoral system is simply catering to those who like to game and rig it. It waters down the value of our citizenship by allowing undocumented aliens and the dead–for starters–to cast votes — perhaps even several at a time.
What I find most egregious is the judge claiming that ID requirements violate the equal protection clause. Far from it! If anything, it’s the strongest measure we can take to ensure the principle of “one person, one vote.” I applaud anyone, of any political persuasion, who wants to be active in our electoral system. If you value that participation, do what it takes to be eligible… including being in the country legally, and obtaining the appropriate credentials. Given all the Americans who have literally died protecting your option to do so, it’s the least you can do.
“What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.” — Thomas Paine
Note: this post written not just in protest of the legal decision, but in honor of groups such as North Carolina’s Voter Integrity Project, who have done true patriots’ work in exposing how our lax election laws undermine the integrity and legitimacy of the entire system. These groups and individuals, on the front lines of these legal challenges, deserve our support and our thanks.