Is Requiring a Photo Voter ID Racist?

Image courtesy of tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com.

We've been hearing much lately that states requiring photo identification in order to reduce voter fraud is "racist."  But, is it racist and discriminatory or just more fear-mongering by the Obama Administration and Democrats?

The subject has garnered much attention as of late due to the upcoming 2012 Presidential election and due to South Carolina's current voter law requiring photo identification to vote, a law which is currently being blocked by the arm of the Obama administration, the Department of Justice.  South Carolina will challenge the Administration's interference, as will other states that now have the law on their books, such as Texas and Florida.

In Obama's home state of Illinois, consumers must produce photo identification to buy Drano, the caustic acid normally used to unclog drains.  This comes as a result of two acid burnings of women with the product.  One of the women burned, later admitted to burning herself.  Now, however, thousands of consumers are required to show photo identification to purchase various drain cleaners.

Most states require photo I.D. in order to purchase items such as cigarettes, alcohol, Sudafed, and various over-the-counter allergy medicines. In addition, most states require a photo ID to purchase a vehicle, rent a vehicle, buy a home, rent a home, apply for welfare, government subsidies, and food stamps, to register their children in public school and to obtain a passport.

Republicans state that the new voter ID laws, which now include the states of Kansas, Rhode Island, Tennessee and Texas, which will require voters to prove their identities at the ballot box, will reduce voter fraud.  The number of states that require some form of voter identification now totals 30.

The Democrats' opinion on requiring photo identification is that it's racist, discriminatory and encourages voter suppression.  Why? Attorney General Eric Holder states that the new laws will encourage disenfranchisement of minority voters.  He believes that  a growing number of minorities fear that “the same disparities, divisions and problems” now afflict America as they did in 1965 prior to the Voting Rights Act. Democrats call the laws an "authoritarian assault" upon civil liberties.  The NAACP has even petitioned the United Nations, asking that the law be declared a "human rights violation."

However, the Supreme Court already has ruled on the issue - upholding state voter ID laws. In the 2008 Crawford v. Marion County Election Board decision, the high court held that an Indiana law mandating photo identification at the voting booth was indeed constitutional.  And Democrats have not proven that there is indeed any type of discrimination going on.  Their reason for denouncing voter photo ID laws?  

They say that voter fraud doesn't exist!

Let's examine if that's actually the case:

1.  New Hampshire

The very most recent indication of voter fraud is the New Hampshire Primary where dead people allegedly were registered to vote.  There is an investigation currently underway.

2.  Indiana

There may have been as much as 150 names fraudulently signed to Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's primary petitions in 2008.  One man whose name was signed to the petition for Barack Obama's petition was actually a Hillary Clinton supporter at the time and signed her petition.  Several individuals have come forward to verify that the signatures on the petitions were definitely not their signatures.  

Incidentally, 500 signatures were needed and Obama ended up with 534. The St. Joseph County Attorney Michael Dvorak has a thorough investigation underway. Sources say the probe is gaining steam as prosecutors review the petitions that sailed through the St. Joseph County Voter Registration Board, located in South Bend. There have been reports that as many as SEVEN people may have been involved in an alleged conspiracy to fake the petitions.

3.  Wisconsin

As of August 10th, 2011, 113 individuals are now known to have been convicted for voter fraud committed in 2008. Likely, this is the highest number of voter fraud convictions obtained in any state for a single election cycle since 1936. According to a 2006 Justice Department report, there have been more convictions for voter fraud in Minnesota from just the 2008 election than the DOJ was
able to prosecute over a five year span, nationwide. Many of the voters were felons that were ineligible to vote.

There are many more examples, so what are the Democrats complaining about?  Do they not desire fair, representative and lawful elections?

Now, lets take a look at the Voter Photo Identification laws.  Do they prevent eligible voters from placing their votes on Election Day?

From the site:

• Strict Photo ID (8 states):  Voters must show a photo ID in order to vote.  Voters who are unable to show photo ID at the polls are permitted to vote a provisional ballot, which is counted only if the voter returns to election officials within several days after the election to show a photo ID (emphasis added).  At the beginning of 2011, there were just two states--Georgia and Indiana--with strict photo ID laws.  Two states--Kansas and Wisconsin--passed new strict photo ID laws in 2011, and three states with non-photo ID laws--South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas--amended them to make them strict photo ID laws. None of these new laws is in effect yet, although they likely will be before the 2012 elections. Also in 2011, Mississippi voters approved via the citizen initiative process a strict photo ID requirement. The legislature will have to pass implementing legislation before the requirement can take effect. See the notes below Table 1 for more information regarding effective dates for new legislation.
• Photo ID (7 states):  Voters are asked to show a photo ID in order to vote.  Voters who are unable to show photo ID are still allowed to vote if they can meet certain other critieria.  In some states, a voter with ID can vouch for a voter without.  Other states ask a voter without ID to provide personal information such as a birth date, or sign an affidavit swearing to his or her identity.  Voters without ID are not required to return to election officials after the election and show a photo ID in order to have their ballots counted in the manner that voters without ID in the strict photo ID states are emphasis added).  The seven states with photo ID laws are Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan and South Dakota.
• Non-Photo ID (16 states):  All voters must show ID at the polls.  The list of acceptable IDs is varied and includes options that do not have a photo, such as a utility bill or bank statement with the voter's name and address. Rhode Island passed a new voter ID law in 2011. It takes effect in stages -- beginning in 2012, voters will be required to show an ID (although not necessarily a photo ID) at the polls, and in 2014 a photo ID requirement will take effect.

So, even without proper photo identification, voters are STILL ALLOWED TO VOTE.

It seems to me that the Obama administration is using its surrogates and the Department of Justice (which is embroiled in its own legal woes pertaining to White Gun, Fast and Furious, and Gun Walker) to ensure the 2012 election turns out in their favor.  It's apparent that the administration is trying to whip up minority frenzy, spreading the myth of widespread ballot suppression. The goal is to foster a sense of racial persecution of blacks and minorities with the intent to maximize voter turnout in the Democrats' favor in November. The results, however, will be to poison race relations further, all while the class warfare rhetoric rages on.