Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Voter ID Laws
Today, the United States Supreme Court ruled with a 6-3 decision that individual states can require proof of identification to vote without violating constitutionally protected rights. Suddenly that state senate race between Kim Brimer and Wendy Davis just got that much more interesting. Why you ask? Because picking up one more Democrat in the Senate means that they would not have to run perfect attendance on the Senate floor to invoke a 2/3 rule block on the measure, the only tool Democrats have to stop voter ID laws in Texas.
In response to the ruling, Lt. Governor Dewhurst had this to say, “The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling is a victory for democracy in our nation and I’m pleased that the court agreed with the vast majority of Texans who want to protect the sacred American principle of ‘one person, one vote.’ With this legal challenge now behind us, I look forward to passing a fair Voter ID law in Texas next year that fully protects the voting rights of all U.S. citizens registered to vote in Texas.’”
I applaud Dewhurst’s optimistic approach, but even with Justice Stevens saying, “We cannot conclude that the statute imposes ‘excessively burdensome requirements’ on any class of voters,” I still don’t think that Democrats are going to suddenly jump to sign on. At the heart of their argument is that voter ID is an oppressive solution that is in search of a problem to solve. Alas, like most times, the Democrats are sadly mistaken.
Recently, in 5 counties across Texas, more than 6,700 individuals were found to be illegally registered to vote. And the funny thing is, almost all of them were brought into light because they outed themselves when showing up for jury duty and opting out as a non-citizen. Imagine how many illegally registered voters we would uncover if we actually took an aggressive look at the rolls. So there is a problem present that is searching for a solution.
Voter ID is also not suppressive to voter turnout (refer back to Justice Stevens’ quote). I could not name for you one person that I know (including my grandmother) who does not have a Texas driver’s license. But even if I could, under the Texas proposed plan, voters could still bring with them to the polls such non-picture ID options as a copy of their utility bill and still be allowed to vote.
Bottom line in this blogger’s mind…I have to show a picture ID if I want to open a Blockbuster account, just like I do if I want to go view an apartment or walk up to a bar and order a drink. Heck, I’ve never had a job (even going back to my burger flipping days) that didn’t want a copy of my driver’s license. I’m asked to show my ID with such frequency because when I want to open a credit account or seek out a property lease or drink a beer or even find a job, people want to be assured that I am who I say I am.
Now why on earth wouldn’t we want to join 20 other states and bring the same level of protection to our system of voting? Are Democrats really worried about “voter oppression”? Or are they more worried about losing votes once illegally registered voters are purged from the rolls?
And one last question for BOR…how can you say that a Republican Supreme Court backs a Republican-pushed law when Justice Stevens sided with Voter ID after siding with Democrats in Bush v Gore in 2000, which was truly a party line vote? Now, if you can mount a defense for BOR’s position, then you’re smarter than me. But if you can’t, then feel free to join the “they’re just a bunch of cry babies” bandwagon.