MyCommunityNOW.com
Blog Home |  Email Author  |  About this Blog       Welcome to MyCommunityNOW - Blogs Sign in | Join

Curmudgeon's Corner

cur-mud-geon: anyone who hates hypocrisy and pretense and has the temerity to say so; anyone with the habit of pointing out unpleasant facts in an engaging and humorous manner

Big Oaks (or Big Votes) from Little ACORNS Grow?

By Al Campbell
Tuesday, Oct 14 2008, 09:15 AM

ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, has been in the news for several of the past election cycles and finds itself there again.  Is this simply a politically-driven campaign or does ACORN merit this attention?  How does ACORN influence elections, if it does?

The Journal Sentinel editorialized yesterday on this subject, and essentially took the position that this is much ado over nothing.  The editorial staff cites the recent revelation that ACORN hired seven felons to serve as 'deputy registrars' and justifies this with its further discussion about how the registration cards are subjected to review before being handed over to the election officials, etc.

That seems to miss the fact that 49 'deputy registrars' in Milwaukee were referred to the authorities for possible voter registration irregularities discovered by the Election Commission.

It is interesting to me that ACORN has no political agenda but seems to somehow find itself registering Democrat-leaning voters in over 95% of the cases.  It specifically targets parts of the communities in which it works that typically vote heavily for Democrats.  Barack Obama's campaign actually donated some $832,000 to an ACORN affiliate to 'get out the vote'.  It originally tried to obfuscate the reason for the payment but finally admitted that it was to be used to 'get out the vote'.  We can surmise which voters that money will be used to identify and push to the polls.

Why did the first 'solution' offered to end the economic crisis in our economy include an automatic funding mechanism to get more and more money to ACORN?  Do you think there might be a political agenda at work here?  That was removed as the result of the initial failure of that 'solution' to get sufficient votes.  That speaks well for Jim Sensenbrenner voting no.  Yes, I know that the Democrat in Appleton voted no, as well, but he was given permission to do that only because he is in a tough race for re-election at the end of his first two years in the House of Representatives and Ms. Pelosi needs to be able to count on his re-election.

Finally, there are legal actions being taken against ACORN in other parts of the country over the issues that have dogged this organization for years.  Why were only the 'deputy registrars' referred for legal scrutiny while the organization proper again was given a pass in our state?

Why has the state Government Accountability Board not required voter registration lists be checked for irregularities since early-August of this year?  Why have voter registration officers across the state been told to not cross-reference with the motor vehicle department database?  There was time for that yet it didn't happen...it isn't being permitted even where community officials have asked to be able to do the verification.

The action brought, finally, by the Attorney General has been 'slow-walked' through the system so as to assure there'll be nothing to interfere with the 'system' until at least after the race for President is decided. 

Beyond all this lies a simple solution, so far blocked by the party in power in Wisconsin (Democrat if you've any question).

What is that simple solution?  It is voter photo identification.  It also could be a dose of 'no same day registration' that would give our officials the opportunity to verify the information provided by those who register at the pools the same day as they vote.

Last, but possibly most important is this:  Wisconsin voters are so evenly divided as to make any illegally-cast votes significantly more important to the outcome.  If we again have a difference of a few thousand voters deciding the outcome, a few thousand illegally-registering and voting people could easily change the outcome thus impacting every honest vote in the state.  And, there can be no credible argument that illegal votes do not occur.  We all know better...or should!

Comments

Ann23   

The simple solution is not that simple.  For example, read this opinion article from FoxNews.com:

Voting Should Not Require a Photo ID

Monday , December 24, 2007

By Martin Frost

ADVERTISEMENT

Once upon a time, in the dark ages of American politics, white Southerners conspired to prevent blacks from voting by passing a series of restrictive voter registration laws that included such things as poll taxes and literacy tests. These practices were outlawed by Congress with passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The lineal descendents of the people who tried to restrict black suffrage are back. Their new tactic is to require a picture ID to be shown by anyone seeking to vote. An Indiana law imposing such a requirement has been challenged, and its fate will be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case set for argument early next year. Challenging the adoption of this and other voter photo ID laws is the single biggest civil rights issue facing the country today.

Let’s take a close look at the Indiana law passed on a straight party line vote by the state’s Republican legislature and signed into law by its Republican governor.

The Indiana law requires that a prospective voter show a current photo ID that has been issued by the United States or by the State of Indiana. It must have an expiration date, and the name on the document must conform "to the name in the individual’s voter registration record.”

This sounds reasonable on its face. Not so. This law in fact discriminates against people who do not drive and do not otherwise need a state-issued photo ID. Who are we talking about? Elderly, disabled, poor and minority voters, to be specific. Most of these coincidentally are Democrats.

According to the brief submitted to the Supreme Court by the individuals challenging the constitutionality of this Indiana law, the statute clearly is aimed straight at these groups. The brief notes that “About 12% of voting-age Americans lack a driver’s license. And about 11% of voting-age United States citizens -- more than 21 million individuals -- lack any form of current government-issued photo ID. That 11% figure grows to 15% for voting-age citizens earning less than $35,000 per year, 18% for citizens at least 65 years old, and 25% for African-American voting-age citizens.” This is what is called in the law a “disparate effect.”

What’s the other side of the argument? An amicus brief filed with the Supreme Court on behalf of a group of Indiana and Southern state election officials notes, “Political power is, unfortunately, a proven inducement to corruption. As James Madison noted in Federalist 51, men are not angels and sound government must be structured in light of that unfortunate, but realistic, understanding." Madison, of course, helped draft our Constitution, which counted slaves as three-fifths of a person for census purposes. The government-sanctioned racial discrimination of our founding fathers took a civil war and almost 200 years to reverse.

The peculiar nature of all this is that no one can cite examples of in-person voter fraud, which is what a photo ID theoretically is designed to prevent. The only examples of voter fraud ever cited involve absentee ballots where no photo ID would be necessary.

Trying to impose a photo ID requirement as a condition to vote is a step backward. It is an effort that will suppress the vote of minorities and the elderly. It has been vigorously opposed by all the civil rights organizations in the country and by fair-minded people of both parties.

We should be doing everything possible to make it easier for eligible persons to vote in this country, rather than making it more difficult. The United States has one of the lowest percentages of voter participation rates in the world. Every time we erect barriers to casting votes, we erode our image as a great bastion of democracy.

There is no question that anyone involved in voter fraud should be prosecuted. But you don’t eliminate voter fraud by making it harder for honest people to cast their votes. There are plenty of other ways to ensure that the person who shows up to vote is the person on the registration rolls and not someone else. Establishing a system that discriminates against low income, elderly and minority voters is not a reasonable response to this particular problem.

Many middle class and wealthy white people can’t understand why someone would not have a current photo ID. These are the same people who didn’t understand why poor blacks and the elderly weren’t able to get out of New Orleans before Katrina hit. It was because many of these unfortunate victims of the storm didn’t have a car and, of course, also didn’t need a driver's license with a photo ID.

This is not the bad old days when the government tacitly or explicitly excluded blacks and others from the polls. Let’s hope the Supreme Court doesn’t take a big step back in time.

October 14, 2008 10:03 AM

Charlie Hargan   

I think the best cure for "voter fraud" is to prosecute any that are found to be abusing the voting regulations in our country to the fullest degree. "ACORN" is the best--and worst-- example of ruining the open elections in the USA. There is no reason for the Federal Elections Board to be dragging their feet in this & other cases. Make examples of those that actually promote the fraudulent voting.

October 14, 2008 11:07 AM

GTT   

Charlie,

In order for this prosecution to happen in Wisconsin we will need Mr. Doyle and his cronies out of the state capitial! As long as he is in power here nothing will ever be done!

I refuse to accept the arguement that it is some sort of dicrimination to require a photo ID to vote!

October 14, 2008 12:47 PM

taxedtothemax   

You can not function in this society without a photo id. This farce that requiring a photo id is to restrict voters is such a piece of baloney.

Please produce for me a person that is of sound enough mind to vote that doesn't have a photo id. You cannot cash a check, buy liquor, open a bank account, or the dozens of other things you have to do in life to function in this society.

The only reason to oppose voter id is to perpetuate voter fraud.

October 14, 2008 1:30 PM

Charlie Hargan   

I agree with both of the last two writers.

October 14, 2008 5:40 PM

Ann23   

"You cannot cash a check, buy liquor, open a bank account, or the dozens of other things you have to do in life to function in this "

Absolutely not true.  People can and do function in society without photo ids.  You people are out of touch with anyone who doesn't live in the "Germantowns" of the world.  

October 15, 2008 10:19 AM

GTT   

Ann,

I am not sure where you get your information from but, the last time I opened a checking account the FIRST thing I was asked for was a photo ID for proof of my residence, the last time I Purchased Beer I was asked for a Photo ID. Do I need to go on???

The fact is that there are many reasons to require a photo ID in order for someone to vote. If you do not have one you should be out of luck!

If you are not a legal citizen, sorry, you do not have the right to vote!

But with liberals like you out there voter ID will continue to struggle!

October 15, 2008 10:49 AM

Ann23   

Hasn't it even crossed your mind that there are people out there that survive without a checking account?  Some people that live paycheck to paycheck and have nothing to put in a bank account.  This is what I mean about you being out of touch - think about it!!  

October 15, 2008 2:06 PM

Charlie Hargan   

I think Ann is out of touch because the ease of getting a photo I.D. overshadows any reason not to have one. Usually a person that has any sort of income also has a driver's liscense with a photo. If they get to the age or condition that they don't renew that liscense, the picture is still a form of I.D. I think you need to face the reality that voting is a priviledge as well as a right and some effort should be exerted by the voter to exercise that right. The time has come for photo I.D.s and that is the "new" way to be in touch.  

October 15, 2008 2:34 PM

Ann23   

Charlie, some people really don't have "any sort of income" and no car, so why would they have a driver's license?  Again, need to step outside Germantown more often.

There is good reason to believe that the main purpose of state voter ID laws is to reduce the number of ballots cast by poor and minority voters.  These people without photo IDs are disproportionately the poor, blacks, students, the elderly and the disabled.  To get government-issued photo ID, non-drivers have to go to out-of-the-way government offices. They may have to pay significant fees for the underlying documents they need, such as birth certificates.

The premise of a voter ID law is to stop people from impersonating other people at the polls. That is an extremely rare — and risky — way to try to steal a vote.  There are few cases where someone has been convicted of doing it.  Much more prevalent is absentee ballot fraud, in which case a photo ID is not required – so why are absentee ballot voters not being scrutinized as well?

If the government would make government-issued photo IDs widely available without charge and phasing the plan over several years, maybe it would be more acceptable.

October 15, 2008 2:45 PM

GTT   

Ann,

Once again with the excuses for not needing a Photo ID!

It is not that difficult to get one and there are many offices on almost every bus line, so not having a vehicle is not going to fly! And once again you are lacking in knowledge with what you are talking about. The absentee ballots are to be scrutinized but because liberals don't want it done, voter validation in this state & others is not happening even though it is a federal law! Welcome to Acorn!! (paid for in part by...Obama!)

October 15, 2008 3:55 PM

taxedtothemax   

Produce people who do not have a photo id. They do not exist. And as I recall from the almost constitutional amendment we had here in Wisconsin - if by some miracle there were a dozen or so people who didn't have one - the would have been given one for free.

Charlie makes a good point. Voting is a privledge and a right of living in a free society. If you want to vote - get a photo id, if you cannot afford one - one will be provided.

October 15, 2008 9:49 PM

Leave a Comment

Please Sign In to post comment.