Count 'Em All - Preferably Once - As Long As They're Qualified
It seems that the idea that great care should be taken to ensure that every vote in an election is counted is one that is shared by both Democrats and Republicans. What is becoming less and less clear, however, is whether the two parties agree that equally great care should be taken to ensure that those who cast the votes actually have the right to cast them, and that these votes are counted only once.
Witness the reaction by Representative John Lewis, Democrat from Georgia, to legislation recently passed in his home state that would require anyone desiring to vote in an election provide proof of who they are in the form of a photo ID. As reported at CNSNews.com, Mr. Lewis, who is best known for his participation in the Civil Rights movement with Martin Luther King, Jr., addressed this issue at a recent news briefing at the Library of Congress, stating that this legislation “is going back almost to the literacy tests; to tell people you must prove who you are” in order to vote.
This volley fired by Mr. Lewis is just the latest example of the one-sided approach to election reform advocated by the most prominent members of the party that – registered and qualified – voters have consistently placed in the minority. That approach calls for virtually unfettered access to polling places by anyone with a notion to cast a ballot, while vigorously opposing any attempt to verify their qualification, under the law, to do so. The idea is that the only valid election is one in which voting is as easy and convenient as, in Mr. Lewis’ words “getting a glass of water.”
The problem with this notion is that anyone, of any nationality or age, can get a glass of water, numerous times actually, while the law makes plain that such is not to be the case where the sacred privilege of casting a vote in an American election is concerned. But the fact of the matter is that Mr. Lewis’ comparison to the literacy tests of old is a flawed comparison anyway, cheapening the sacrifices made by those in the Civil Rights movement, because the intent of that requirement was entirely different than the intent of the new legislation as the two requirements deal with this issue from different directions.
The intent of literacy tests was, by and large, for the purpose of excluding those who would otherwise be eligible to vote. The intent of the recent legislation is to merely ensure who it is that is eligible, with no attempt or intent to exclude any eligible citizen whatsoever, as borne out by the fact that the state of Georgia will be required to provide a photo ID, free of charge, to any eligible voter who cannot otherwise obtain one.
Frankly, it is this writer’s opinion that voting is already too easy to ensure that elections reflect the will of an informed electorate. Agree with the requirements the Founders emplaced for voting or not – and this writer does not agree with all of them – at the very least one can acknowledge that they were trying to ensure that those who would be eligible to vote would be informed on the issues of the day, and would feel a very real stake in the outcome, both for good or ill, of those elections.
Mr. Lewis’ heartburn over this logical and even-handed approach to election reform bears little resemblance to the righteous indignation of earlier generations to legislation that was clearly intended to unjustly exclude some citizens from voting due to their race or background. Rather, it smells more like just another angle from which the Democrats are trying desperately to manipulate the political landscape in such a way as to ensure that they always win, regardless of the will of the people – as expressed by the qualified voters of the nation – may be.
For many Americans, the call to vote “early and often” is merely a good-natured joke to be bandied about at election time. But, more and more, it seems to be the actual intent of the leadership of a minority party that seems to feel it is the only way to return to power. Legislation like that in Georgia is dangerous to them because it makes such practices more difficult.
Witness the reaction by Representative John Lewis, Democrat from Georgia, to legislation recently passed in his home state that would require anyone desiring to vote in an election provide proof of who they are in the form of a photo ID. As reported at CNSNews.com, Mr. Lewis, who is best known for his participation in the Civil Rights movement with Martin Luther King, Jr., addressed this issue at a recent news briefing at the Library of Congress, stating that this legislation “is going back almost to the literacy tests; to tell people you must prove who you are” in order to vote.
This volley fired by Mr. Lewis is just the latest example of the one-sided approach to election reform advocated by the most prominent members of the party that – registered and qualified – voters have consistently placed in the minority. That approach calls for virtually unfettered access to polling places by anyone with a notion to cast a ballot, while vigorously opposing any attempt to verify their qualification, under the law, to do so. The idea is that the only valid election is one in which voting is as easy and convenient as, in Mr. Lewis’ words “getting a glass of water.”
The problem with this notion is that anyone, of any nationality or age, can get a glass of water, numerous times actually, while the law makes plain that such is not to be the case where the sacred privilege of casting a vote in an American election is concerned. But the fact of the matter is that Mr. Lewis’ comparison to the literacy tests of old is a flawed comparison anyway, cheapening the sacrifices made by those in the Civil Rights movement, because the intent of that requirement was entirely different than the intent of the new legislation as the two requirements deal with this issue from different directions.
The intent of literacy tests was, by and large, for the purpose of excluding those who would otherwise be eligible to vote. The intent of the recent legislation is to merely ensure who it is that is eligible, with no attempt or intent to exclude any eligible citizen whatsoever, as borne out by the fact that the state of Georgia will be required to provide a photo ID, free of charge, to any eligible voter who cannot otherwise obtain one.
Frankly, it is this writer’s opinion that voting is already too easy to ensure that elections reflect the will of an informed electorate. Agree with the requirements the Founders emplaced for voting or not – and this writer does not agree with all of them – at the very least one can acknowledge that they were trying to ensure that those who would be eligible to vote would be informed on the issues of the day, and would feel a very real stake in the outcome, both for good or ill, of those elections.
Mr. Lewis’ heartburn over this logical and even-handed approach to election reform bears little resemblance to the righteous indignation of earlier generations to legislation that was clearly intended to unjustly exclude some citizens from voting due to their race or background. Rather, it smells more like just another angle from which the Democrats are trying desperately to manipulate the political landscape in such a way as to ensure that they always win, regardless of the will of the people – as expressed by the qualified voters of the nation – may be.
For many Americans, the call to vote “early and often” is merely a good-natured joke to be bandied about at election time. But, more and more, it seems to be the actual intent of the leadership of a minority party that seems to feel it is the only way to return to power. Legislation like that in Georgia is dangerous to them because it makes such practices more difficult.
posted by JeffreyH | 12:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home