The voter ID law recently enacted in Pennsylvania and which already
operates in other states has occasioned considerable controversy.
Although a majority of Americans polled favor the idea that would-be
voters should be required to identify themselves with a license or with
some other persuasive document, opposition persists. Allow me to express
my considered view, which was also the position taken by the Supreme
Court in 2002, that there is nothing constitutionally wrong with recent
measures taken against voter fraud. They do not single out minorities;
and the attempts being made by Attorney General Eric Holder, at the
bidding of President Obama, to get the laws rescinded as an extension of
the poll tax once used in the South to depress black turnout, are
groundless. All that voters are being asked to do is provide evidence
that they have a legal right to vote.
One counter-argument is that although Republicans may gain in the short run by enacting voter ID laws, they will permanently lose the good will of certain groups. But this is entirely unconvincing. Those who may be excluded by the laws would never likely vote Republican; and those who have complained the most loudly against the laws are black advocates and Democratic operatives, neither of which group seems to be a promising target for Republican persuasion. Despite recent attempts by Mitt Romney to court the black vote, he will not likely obtain more of it than McCain, who picked up only five percent. Would it pay for Pennsylvania Governor Corbett and other Republican politicians to reject voter ID measures on the grounds that they may alienate those who already decidedly against them?
This is like imagining a situation in which Obama and Holder would refrain from challenging known Christian traditionalists and NRA lobbyists who are improperly registered to vote. The Dems would be fools if they did this. And let me hazard the assumption that those who are criticizing Republican support of the ID measures would not object in the least if the present administration found some legal means of preventing their opponents from voting.
Read more: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-logic-of-voter-id/
One counter-argument is that although Republicans may gain in the short run by enacting voter ID laws, they will permanently lose the good will of certain groups. But this is entirely unconvincing. Those who may be excluded by the laws would never likely vote Republican; and those who have complained the most loudly against the laws are black advocates and Democratic operatives, neither of which group seems to be a promising target for Republican persuasion. Despite recent attempts by Mitt Romney to court the black vote, he will not likely obtain more of it than McCain, who picked up only five percent. Would it pay for Pennsylvania Governor Corbett and other Republican politicians to reject voter ID measures on the grounds that they may alienate those who already decidedly against them?
This is like imagining a situation in which Obama and Holder would refrain from challenging known Christian traditionalists and NRA lobbyists who are improperly registered to vote. The Dems would be fools if they did this. And let me hazard the assumption that those who are criticizing Republican support of the ID measures would not object in the least if the present administration found some legal means of preventing their opponents from voting.
Read more: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-logic-of-voter-id/
No comments:
Post a Comment