A reader of The Indianapolis Star from Terre Haute may have unwittingly
revealed the Republican Party's true motives in enacting the Indiana photo
ID law. Reacting to Howard Dean's visit this week to Indianapolis at which
Dean announced the DNC's support for the Indiana Democratic Party's appeal
to the 7th Circuit, the reader, as quoted in this morning's Star, said:
"When will the Democratic Party wake up? The only voters who would be
disenfranchised [by the Indiana photo ID law] are ones who should not be
voting in the first place."
If only others who enacted or who continue to defend this dreadful law
were as candid as this plain-spoken Hoosier!
William R. Groth
Attorney for the Indiana Democratic Party
Esperanto? We couldn't even count the votes in english.
-----Original Message-----
From: "Steven J. Reyes" <sreyes@kaufmandowning.com>
Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 12:15:12
To:<election-law@majordomo.lls.edu>
Subject: Re: Telling real world consequences of Indiana voter id law
I haven't read the particulars of the IN law, but even provisions
"allowing" provisional voters to return to the county registrar with their
ID (if they have one) are problematic.Ê In AZ, for example counties seats
are often 100+ miles from many points in the county thus entailing a 4+
hour round trip.Ê Even if not as far in IN, this requirement creates a
practical barrier for those who didn't have a valid ID for whatever reason
(forgetfulness/registrar error/poll worker error/just moved, etc.). For
older folks and the poor, with less access to transportation, the process
becomes even more complicated. And don't forget all that time off from
work that people might have to take to do all this (if they can afford
to). The list goes on and on and on....(and for what? to "secure" the
ballot from the massive voter fraud that no one seems to be able to point
to?) As you can tell I'm not a fan of these types of voter ID laws. ---
Original Message --- From: "DemEsqNYC@aol.com" !
<DemEsqNYC@aol.com> Sent: Sat 5/6/06 8:41 am To:
"JTorchinsky@Holtzmanlaw.net" <JTorchinsky@Holtzmanlaw.net>,
"election-law@majordomo.lls.edu" <election-law@majordomo.lls.edu> Cc:
Subject: Re: Telling real world consequences of Indiana voter id law
Jason: With all due respect, I think you misunderstand the nature ofÊ
disenfranchisement.Ê If I am allowed to vote by walking into my living
roomÊ any day I want and pushing a button, but you have to go to Alaska
and vote in aÊ 20 minute window on one day of the year, in esperanto on
by chiseling your voteÊ into granite, have you been technically
disenfranchised, perhaps not.Ê HaveÊ you been practically
disenfranchised, certainly.Ê The extreme nature of the example above not
withstanding, everything elseÊ is a matter of degree, but the principal
is the same.Ê Any obstacle thrownÊ up in the path of an otherwise
qualified voter is a step towardsÊ disenfranchisement.Ê The fact that the
vets chose not to jump through theÊ hoops an!
d over the obstacles put in their way does not change the fact!
that th
eyÊ were disenfranchised.Ê They showed up to vote, they were not allowed
toÊ vote. The fact that these voters were veterans is significant only in
oneÊ aspect.Ê They had a government issued photo ID, it just wasn't the
RIGHTÊ government issued photo ID card.Ê This goes to show the absurdity
of theÊ entire voter ID system.Ê It makes the right to vote contingent onÊ
bureaucratic niceties rather than on whether there is any realistic
question asÊ to the voter's identity. Your references to military votes
in Florida are, of course, irrelevant toÊ this debate.Ê I will note that
the people who now do not see a problem withÊ these vets being excluded
were on the other side of the issue then (and vis aÊ versa).Ê What
disturbs me the most is your reference to "at most, 170,000 people" asÊ if
this was a negligible and unimportant number.Ê By my fast and dirtyÊ
calculations, this is about 4% of the voting age population in Missouri.ÊÊ
Even if the number were considerably smaller, I !
will remind you that the VoterÊ ID movement was founded on the mere rumor
of a possibility that someoneÊ somewhere might be voting fraudulently.Ê
There is virtually no proof ofÊ anyone, anywhere voting in person under
someone else's ID (absentee balloting isÊ another story).Ê If potentially
170,000 people being disenfranchised in aÊ single, not particularly
populous state is not significant, then why are we atÊ all concerned
about the voter fraud issue. It seems to me it always comes back to
whether you view voting as a rightÊ or a privilege.Ê To me that is easy,
it is not only a right, it is aÊ duty.Ê It should not be reserved to
those rich enough, educated enough, orÊ just aware enough to possess (and
carry) the right ID, it is for all of us, evenÊ those mere 170,000
"undocumented voters" in Missouri. Howard Leib