The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Thursday, December 29, 2011

ID To Vote

From The New Yorkers we have a link to this article on Attorney General Eric Holder and Voting Rights.

Jeffrey Toobin gives us "Holder's Legacy".  In it Mr Tobin attacks South Carolina's new law requiring a Government ID at the polling place in order to vote.  South Carolina is one of a number of states which require "Pre-clearance" to change voting rules.  We all know the reason—South Carolina is part of the Old South and they will never prove they have overcome their past, even though SC has a real minority governor, more of a minority than Massachusetts.  Or are People whose ancestors are from the sub-continent not really minorities?

Mr Toobin ends up with this ringing endorsement of the Attorney General:
This is a chance for Holder to define his legacy as Attorney General—as something more than the guy who tried, and failed, to have Guantánamo Bay detainees tried in federal court in New York.  There is a purity, a simplicity, about the voting-rights fight that is sadly absent from many modern civil-rights battles.  This is not about special privileges, or quotas, or even complex mathematical formulae.  It’s about a basic right of American citizenship, which is being taken from large numbers of people for the most cynical of reasons.  The laws are, quite literally, indefensible—so Holder ought to make the states that have them try to defend them.  That would be a legacy that would make any Attorney General, and any American, proud.
What Mr Toobin fails to mention is that at the recent General Holder speech in Texas, those attending had to show an ID to get into the building.  We have to show an ID to hear the AG talk? From the Instapundit:
Reader Marian Booker writes:  “A group of people organized by True The Vote in Houston went to Austin to shine light on the need for photo ID in voting, on the day of Eric Holder’s speech.  One speaker noted the irony of declaring photo ID to be too onerous a burden in the voting booth, but that photo ID was required to get into the building where Eric Holder was speaking against requiring photo ID.  I picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue!”
Sure, many tell us voter fraud is not a problem, yet people still go to jail for it, and we aren't even talking Chicago.

As Hot Air notes, even Unions require an ID to vote, at least the Machinists do.

Regards  —  Cliff


Jack Mitchell said...

The case involving ACORN was about illegal practices "registering" voters. It had nothing to do with illegal ballots being cast.

Normally when something crooked goes down on election day it involves election officials messing around with cast ballots, not individual voting evil doers.

Reading this crap, you'd think we are voting in Keno parlours. There are officials watching and, very often, poll checkers from various campaigns.

The ID movement is just another suppression tactic. Boo!, say I.

C R Krieger said...

So, why is it voter suppression to ask for an ID?

I understand it is wrong for folks to have to show an ID when out walking around the block.

Why do I have to show an ID to rent a PO Box?

This is all murky.  But, I still wonder why folks would be afraid to go to their polling place, in their own neighborhood, if they had to flash a Gov't ID.  It doesn't make sense.

Regards  —  Cliff

Anonymous said...

Just one more opportunity to introduce (or retain perhaps is better) racism as an "issue." That is the contention upon which Holder bases his objection to voter ID laws. And if one follows that logic, then it must also be racist for the TSA to demand ID before you can board an airplane.......and I wonder how many of the whiners claiming that their voter rights are being trampled because they must produce an ID are ever able to travel by airplane.....or drive a car.....or cash a check.....or go listen to Holder give a speech.

The entire ID tempest is ludicrous and little more than a shameless ploy to stir up voters and swing them to Obama in 2012 ("Hey, you don't have to show and ID to vote for me. If you live in parts of don't even have to go to the polls!")

Jack Mitchell said...

First of all, let's clearly delineate civic business from commercial enterprise.

Use of planes and PO boxes are on contracted terms between parties. If one party demands ID as part of the transaction, you can choose another vendor, if you wish.

I can only go to one place to vote. That transaction needs to be a open and free as humanly possible.

Let me ask, why not require a signature at the polling place. With the understanding that there is a form of penalty akin to perjury/forgery, if you are not who you sign yourself to be?

The reason is, that would not prevent votes. Sure, it would punish wrongful voters, but it wouldn't shift an election.

And that is what these ID laws are about!

Should I expect to see a bunch of Tea Party yahoos with "Sign to Vote" buttons? Pfft!

Anonymous said...

Your assertion about airline travel being a contract ignores the fact that it isn't the airlines who are demanding an ID before you fly. It is the Federal government and you can't simply choose a different vendor to escape the requirement. It is all a bit too convenient for the government to demand ID for air travel but turn around and claim it to be racist to demand ID from someone in order to vote.

BTW, the statistics in SC are that the number of black folks who purport to have no ID is about 10.3% as compared to white voters without ID at about 8.5%. Doesn't look too racist to me. Beyond that, the state of SC went to great lengths to make getting a state issued ID as pain free as possible. The ID is free, and for those who claim it a hardship to go to one of the hundreds of locations providing the ID, the state offered to provide FREE transportation to and from a location of choice. FREE. FREE. FREE. One SC voter asked for the ride.

Finally Jack, its not about voting at all. Its about stirring up a constituency. The SCOTUS approved a virtually identical voter ID law for Georgia a few years back, a law that stands today. So this response by Holder is simply an opportunity to play for political gain. Nothing more.

Jack Mitchell said...

Neal, the squabble is played by both sides for whatever political gain can be had. That's no surprise.

A signature is used as much, if not more, as a bind of good faith. Why not simply ask voters to sign the voter record maintained by the poll workers?

Simple, binding & free.