No vote, no voice if you're poor, scatterbrained

"600 Words" by Esther J. Cepeda

If you’re happy to break one law, then you’ll surely break another, right? You’ve jaywalked so you’re a good candidate for committing an armed robbery.

That’s the exact logic being used to defend the ridiculous scheme to limit voters in Missouri and approximately 20 other states across the country by requiring proof of citizenship for voter registration.

That state’s proposed constitutional amendment, which if passed could go into effect as early as August, could keep approximately 240,000 unregistered Missouri-dwelling U.S. citizens from voting in the most interesting Presidential election of the last several decades.

Why? Fear the estimated "12 million" illegal immigrants residing in the U.S. who were bold enough to break federal immigration laws but are too terrified of getting deported to seek medical care or report crime might get it in their minds to commit voter fraud by giving a municipal system all their contact information for a shot at electing a president from a pool of candidates too terrified to broach the subject of immigration.

Already the elderly, the disabled, those who can’t afford – or choose to not to – drive and haven’t gotten around to sitting at their secretary of state facility for most of a day to get an official photo identification card, have been denied their right to vote in seven states. By decree of the U.S. Supreme Court, no less, who upheld Indiana’s photo-ID requirement law on April 28th.

The argument: according to the Justice Department, of forty voters indicted for registration fraud or illegal voting between 2002 and 2005, twenty-one were non-citizens. Also, anyone could easily forge an electric or phone utility bill or paychecks, which are just some of the many forms of ID currently used to register voters.

If you buy into that, then why not note the reported tens of thousands of native-born Missourians who were kicked off Medicaid in 2006 because they couldn’t find their birth certificates to argue that more U.S.-born people will be screwed out of their voting rights than impostors? It’s better to deny suffrage to people who live on the margins of society – or are simply prone to misplacing things – than take a chance on "illegal Irma" blackening the ovals?

On the other side of the conspiracy theory coin are rumors that the Republicans are masterminding a scheme to keep the ethnic minorities – assumed to lean Democratic – from voting them out of office in droves as they vote the country’s first African American into the "White" House.

How about the theory that photo ID voting restrictions are designed to counteract the backlog of 930,000 citizenship applications that U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services recently promised to process by September 30th because about nine thousand almost-new Americans sued USCIS in order to get them to do things "the right way." The letter of the law demands the decision to grant citizenship be made within 120 days of interviewing the applicant, after all.

I’ll give the benefit of the doubt. Let’s assume the people who make these laws up aren’t malevolent but instead simply ignorant.

Is it too much of a stretch to imagine that the well-to-do bureaucrats who propose laws simply can’t imagine a world in which you don’t have mommy or daddy drive you to the DMV on your sixteenth birthday for a driver’s license? Is it really too hard to imagine people of certain means not having a clue how hard it is to navigate replacing a lost birth certificate when you don’t read well or have a disability?

No harder, I guess, than imagining legislators so stupid they actually believe droves of illegal aliens are going to throw the next election.

Esther J. Cepeda writes the “600 Words” & “Pregunta del Dia” columns, and is also a Director at the Chicago-based United Neighborhood Organization. Her reporting and opinions do not necessarily reflect those of UNO. “600 words” is a registered trademark of EeJayCee, Inc., Copyright 2008. May be reprinted with permission, contact eejaycee@600words.com

Comments

[Bob Sperlazzo]

Esther, I understand your frustration. There is no "perfect" system. But, I don't believe asking voters to show identification is over the top. The comparison to jaywalking doesn't quite measure up on this one. To put things into better perspective, we're talking about committing a series of felonies -- not petty offenses like jaywalking. When a citizen of a foreign nation is willing to commit one felony against our national laws, it DOES get easier to commit another (such as identity theft, etc.). One crime often leads to another. Yes, we've seen it firsthand here in Illinois, where I sat as a Poll Watcher and witnessed people who were not registered try to vote. That's exactly the kind of activity that undermines the rights of our citizens, and necessitates more drastic measures, such as Voter IDs. Most people already have a drivers license or similar identification, and alternative forms of ID were taken into account in this case. When this matter came up before the Indiana Supreme Court, the opponents could not produce a single case of someone who was disenfranchised as a result of the law! In fact, the state bent over backwards to help anyone who wanted to get an ID -- for free. You and I have agreed on much in the past; we're not very far apart on the issues. I would only ask you to rethink this one in light of what we stand to lose if we do nothing to protect our system of voting. As Edmund Burke one said, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

[Jim Quince]

Maybe the government should just sign on the credit score theory used by insurance companies, lenders, ... If a person has a credit score they can vote. The next step would be to give higher weights to voters with higher credit scores.

[Carlton Blanchard]

First and formost, when you give lawmakers the benefit of the doubt.. you are being too kind. This country has an incredibly long history of trying to keep certain people away from the ballot box. In revolutionary times... land ownership was used to keep undesirables away. Up until the 15th amendment... race seemed like a perfectly logical reason. After the 15th amendment lawmakers in power had to get more creative... poll taxes.. reading requirements.

Well, welcome to the New Millenium! Proof of citizenship.

Okay... reality break. Citizenship has always been a requirement for voting! Nobody has a problem with that. Showing a picture i.d., again already required and still no problem. So why the need for the new law? One reason and one reason only... irrational fear of Latino voters. And who has cause to fear and the ability to do something about it? The party in power that wants to stay in power, that's who.

EJC- you hit the nail on the head once again!

Oh, and Frank... give it a rest. The Republicans have been taunting the American People with the terrorist bogey man since 9/11. It is not a catch all excuse for passing whatever legislation allows them to achieve their agenda. The American people will speak this fall... even if some of them have a little more red tape to deal with... and when they do.. you can bet the times will be a'changin'!!

[Rick Biesada]

Esther, these laws are made for the protection of American citizens to protect us from greedy, lustful,corrupt public servants. It is these same law makers who exploit illegal aliens for the benefit of campaign contributions from big business as they discriminate against citizens and lawful residents.

These are just symthoms of a corrupt government.

Your anger needs to be aimed at these public servant prostitutes who would lure little boys if they thought it would enhance their careers or seeth their power.

Presenting ID's to vote is a no brainer. You have to show an ID to get your voting card, welfare card,library card, or to rent a warped movie from Block Buster Video. Most states offer picture ID's for free, and if a person can't take the time to go down to the Recorder of Deeds, to purchase an ID at a nominal fee to exercise their sacred right to vote... maybe they are not worthy of that right.

The people who do not participate are actually the cause of our government messing over us with impunity.
Personal responsibilty is still one of the precepts on which our nation was founded upon.
If more American's were self reliant we wouldn't have evolved into a global society with a sheep mentality of a one world government. Two parties pushing the same globalist dream of forsaking the people for cheap labor, and nation states without borders.

Keep jabbing away.

Rick

[Rudy]

Esther, I couldn't agree with you more. After the removal of thousands of African-American voters from the rolls during the 2000 election in Florida, I don't trust this administration and the right leaning supreme court to protect our civil rights and liberties. After all they believe in torture! I believe the right-wing forces in this country are determined to do whatever is necessary to stop Clinton and in particular Obama from becoming president. And if it means scapegoating immigrants in order to keep the motivated base of Democrats from their right to vote so be it. How else can the Republicans stop the tidal wave of youth, people of color, women, labor, and the anti-war movement from coalescing around a Democratic candidate? Only backwards thinking people who fear change and true democracy think stripping u.s. citizens of their right to vote is the solution to our problems. Sounds very Bushy to me. Let's make history by taking back congress and the white house in 2008! Si se puede! You go Esther!

[Frank]

I have to disagree with you on this one Esther. Your perspective seems to be framed in such a way as to imply this is targeted at Mexican immigrants. I don't think many in this country believe that Mexicans, legal or illegal, have malevolent intentions when they come to this country. But there are others that do wish us harm. And they may even be so devious as to try and skew our elections in favor of their interest. This law is like every other law, designed to stop the few bad guys, often at the inconvenience of those who are law abiding or otherwise non-threatening. This is a nation of laws, and yes, some of them seem moronic. But I don't think asking someone for verification of citizenship before they are allowed to exercise the most precious right on earth is unreasonable.