Air of desperation in Democrats' attempts to roll back voter laws
Published: December 13, 2011
THE idea of requiring voters to prove they are who they say they are before casting a ballot, as several states have done in recent years, has Democrats riled up. They promise a strong push in 2012 to right these so-called wrongs.
Democratic Party officials are, as The Associated Press reported, âorganizing on a number of fronts to overturn some of the measures, educate voters on the types of documents necessary to vote and pursue lawsuits if necessary.â
Our guess is they won't be visiting Oklahoma, whose voter ID law was given 74 percent approval by voters last year. Here are two reasons: Our law provides voters a wide berth when it comes to providing documentation, and a current effort to challenge it is having a tough time.
A woman filed suit last year in Tulsa County naming then-Gov. Brad Henry as a defendant. A judge said that wasn't the proper venue and ordered the lawsuit moved to Oklahoma County. The woman's attorney dismissed that suit and filed a subsequent lawsuit this year, naming the state Election Board. The state Supreme Court recently said Oklahoma County is the proper venue for the case because that's where the Election Board is housed.
The lawsuit contends Oklahoma's new law impinges on those who don't have an appropriate ID âor who are unwilling to accept any level of this statewide infringement on the right to vote.â
We've never understood the infringement argument, which is a staple of Democrats on this issue. Requiring an ID to cash a check or board an airplane or buy a pack of smokes isn't seen as onerous. But somehow doing the same to cast a vote is?
That's a weak argument, particularly in Oklahoma. State law requires voters to show a driver's license or other government-issued photo ID. Failing that, they can use other identification such as the voter card that's issued free by county election boards. Finally, if they have no ID when they arrive to vote, they can cast a provisional ballot.
Other states have stricter rules. For example, some allow for provisional ballots but require voters to return to the polling place with an ID within a certain time frame in order for their vote to count. Those states are sure to get a visit from Democratic Party forces.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of voter ID laws. Studies conducted after the 2008 election showed they didn't hurt turnout among blacks and other groups that Democrats say are most likely to be adversely affected. These efforts to overturn or weaken the laws have an air of desperation to them.
http://newsok.com/air-of-desperatio...back-voter-laws/article/3631452#ixzz1gRg9yyXx
Published: December 13, 2011
THE idea of requiring voters to prove they are who they say they are before casting a ballot, as several states have done in recent years, has Democrats riled up. They promise a strong push in 2012 to right these so-called wrongs.
Democratic Party officials are, as The Associated Press reported, âorganizing on a number of fronts to overturn some of the measures, educate voters on the types of documents necessary to vote and pursue lawsuits if necessary.â
Our guess is they won't be visiting Oklahoma, whose voter ID law was given 74 percent approval by voters last year. Here are two reasons: Our law provides voters a wide berth when it comes to providing documentation, and a current effort to challenge it is having a tough time.
A woman filed suit last year in Tulsa County naming then-Gov. Brad Henry as a defendant. A judge said that wasn't the proper venue and ordered the lawsuit moved to Oklahoma County. The woman's attorney dismissed that suit and filed a subsequent lawsuit this year, naming the state Election Board. The state Supreme Court recently said Oklahoma County is the proper venue for the case because that's where the Election Board is housed.
The lawsuit contends Oklahoma's new law impinges on those who don't have an appropriate ID âor who are unwilling to accept any level of this statewide infringement on the right to vote.â
We've never understood the infringement argument, which is a staple of Democrats on this issue. Requiring an ID to cash a check or board an airplane or buy a pack of smokes isn't seen as onerous. But somehow doing the same to cast a vote is?
That's a weak argument, particularly in Oklahoma. State law requires voters to show a driver's license or other government-issued photo ID. Failing that, they can use other identification such as the voter card that's issued free by county election boards. Finally, if they have no ID when they arrive to vote, they can cast a provisional ballot.
Other states have stricter rules. For example, some allow for provisional ballots but require voters to return to the polling place with an ID within a certain time frame in order for their vote to count. Those states are sure to get a visit from Democratic Party forces.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of voter ID laws. Studies conducted after the 2008 election showed they didn't hurt turnout among blacks and other groups that Democrats say are most likely to be adversely affected. These efforts to overturn or weaken the laws have an air of desperation to them.
http://newsok.com/air-of-desperatio...back-voter-laws/article/3631452#ixzz1gRg9yyXx
