[antimedia] antimedia: Patterico asks his readers....
Email subscription to blog articles
antimedia at lists.powerblogs.com
Wed Jan 16 23:49:23 EST 2008
Posted by antimedia:
Patterico asks his readers....
http://www.antimedia.us/posts/1200545355.shtml
....[1]to fisk a NY Times [2]op-ed by Adam Cohen. Here's my
contribution. I'm including the entire article in the interest of
fairness and full disclosure.
The Supreme Court heard arguments last week in a hugely important
case about voter ID laws. Asking for identification at the polls
may sound reasonable, but an Indiana law disenfranchises large
numbers of people without driverâs licenses, especially poor and
minority voters.
Interesting how Cohen is so certain that poor and minority voters will
be disenfranchised. Of course, he can not and does not provide any
evidence. Nor does he mention [3]the recently documented case of a
woman registered to vote in Florida who tried to register to vote in
Indiana as well.
BTW, the Indiana law [4]does not require a drivers license.
If the court upholds the law, as appears likely, it will be a sad
new chapter in its abandonment of voters, a group whose rights it
once defended vigorously.
Because no one should have to prove they're actually eligible to vote
before voting....
As long as there have been elections, there have been attempts to
keep eligible people from voting. States and localities adopted
poll taxes, literacy tests, âwhite primaries,â âmalapportionmentâ â
drawing district lines to give a small number of rural voters the
same representation as a large number of urban voters â and
restrictions on student voting. In recent decades, the Supreme
Court has rejected all of them.
The court understood that the Constitution guaranteed a robust form
of democracy and saw its clear value for the nation. During the
tumultuous late-1960s, Chief Justice Earl Warren declared that most
of the countryâs problems could be solved through the political
process if everyone âhas the opportunity to participate on equal
terms with everyone else and can share in electing representatives
who will be representative of the entire community and not of some
special interest.â
And on equal terms they will. All those eligible to vote and able to
prove that fact will be allowed to vote. The only people
"disenfranchised" will be those who cannot prove that they are
eligible to vote.
It's sort of the same thing as proving you have a source of income
before getting a loan. Or proving residency before becoming eligible
for in-state tuition. Or proving your identity before collecting on
your megalotto winnings....
In recent years, however, with a conservative majority in place,
the court has become increasingly hostile to voters.
Well, not all voters. Just those who can't prove they're eligible to
vote or capable of reading a ballot.
During the oral arguments in the Bush v. Gore case in 2000, Justice
Sandra Day OâConnor showed disdain for voters who had trouble with
Floridaâs disastrous punch-card ballots. After insisting that the
directions âcouldnât be clearer,â she suggested that the court
ignore the ballots of voters who had failed to master the
intricacies. That is precisely what it did, by a 5-4 vote.
No mention of the fact that [5]repeated attempts by liberal media
[6]to prove that Al Gore won the election all [7]failed to do so.
Since Bush v. Gore, disdain for voters has become the norm. The
court rejected two successive challenges to gerrymandered
Congressional districts. One was Tom DeLayâs brazen redrawing of
the lines in Texas, which all but guaranteed a Republican victory
and made the voters seem irrelevant.
Note to Cohen. Gerrymandering is a neologism named after [8]Governor
of Massachusetts Elbridge Gerry, who signed into law a bill that
redistricted the state in 1812 in an attempt to help one party win
more seats in the state Senate. (Two guesses which party that was.)
It's a political thang, ya dig?
The justices also seem poised, if comments during oral arguments
are any indication, to uphold New Yorkâs undemocratic process for
selecting state court judges. An appeals court rightly ruled
against the system of shadowy nominating conventions, which allows
political machines to thwart the will of the voters and handpick
judges.
Gee, who runs those political machines in New York? You don't suppose
it would be voters, do you?
It might seem that todayâs court is simply judicially restrained,
deferring to rules adopted by the democratically elected branches.
Recently, however, the court struck down parts of the
McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that limited âSwift boatâ
style attack ads on the eve of elections. It was perfectly willing
to reverse a federal law when the political power of corporations
and wealthy individuals was at stake.
Do I detect a strong desire to overcome the will of the people by
judicial fiat?
The Indiana voter ID case should not be a hard one. Restrictions on
voting are subject to heightened constitutional scrutiny, and the
state cannot justify the enormous burdens the law imposes.
Because God knows, proving who you are and where you live is getting
more and more difficult every day.
There is no evidence that in-person vote fraud has ever occurred in
the state,
Well, except for that recent example....
but there is considerable evidence that voters will be
disenfranchised.
And we wait breathlessly for Cohen to provide some.....
Indiana could have deterred fraud in less harmful ways, including
by accepting a wider range of IDâs.
Wider than [9]"any form of photo ID" issued by Indiana or the US
government that has your name, picture and an expiration date later
than the last general election?
Critics of the court are already dubbing the voter ID case Bush v.
Gore II, and ascribing political motives. The Indiana law, like
others nationwide, was pushed through by Republican legislators,
evidently with the intent of reducing Democratic turnout.
Because Democrats are pathologically unable to prove who they are or
were they live.....
The five conservative justices may like the fact that voter ID laws
increase the odds that Republicans will hold on to the White House
in 2008. Or they may have a disregard for poor and minority voters
that transcends partisan politics.
Because, unlike his highness, Adam, those poor and minority voters are
incapable of functioning normally in society without the aide of
enlightened and concerned folks like Adam, poor souls.
At the oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that if
a voter has to travel 17 miles by bus to a clerkâs office to fight
over whether his vote should count, it is no great concern since
the trip is not âvery far.â
Probably at least a mile or two farther than the local takeout.
Besides, two years is hardly enough time for someone who is poor or a
minority to plan for such a lengthy trip. I mean, damn!, they can't
even afford a Garmin, man! And forget a PDA, or, you know, like, a
cell phone, to remind them to go get that ID!
When the court struck down parts of the McCain-Feingold law, Chief
Justice Roberts emphasized that the Constitution ârequires us to
err on the side of protecting political speech rather than
suppressing it.â When it comes to votersâ rights, the court appears
eager to err in the opposite direction.
Hopefully these types of errors will be propounded and spread
throughout the country.
At least then our politicians might pander to illegal immigrants a
little less.
Tags: [10]voter id [11]gerrymander [12]Supreme Court
[13]disenfranchise
References
1. http://patterico.com/2008/01/16/contest-fisk-adam-cohen/
2. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/opinion/15tue4.html?ei=5124&en=1814cd483c26ad51&ex=1358139600&adxnnl=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&adxnnlx=1200460117-1yW5foq303Y4RP4Pe00AdA
3. http://hotair.com/archives/2008/01/10/that-woman-whos-challenging-indianas-voter-id-law-registered-to-vote-in-two-states/
4. http://ingov.chacha.com/search/query?query_text=voter+eligibility
5. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html
6. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2001-04-03-floridamain.htm
7. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A12623-2001Nov11?language=printer
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymander
9. http://www.in.gov/sos/photoid/PHOTOID_FINAL.pdf
10. http://technorati.com/tag/voter%20id
11. http://technorati.com/tag/gerrymander
12. http://technorati.com/tag/Supreme%20Court
13. http://technorati.com/tag/disenfranchise
More information about the antimedia
mailing list