TBO.com, The Tampa Tribune and The Tampa Times - breaking news and weather
Tuesday, Jul 22, 2014
Opinion

Voter purge justified

Staff
Published:   |   Updated: March 18, 2013 at 07:25 PM

The premise of Jonathan Alter's column "GOP voter suppression plan grinds on" is nonsense. Predictably, he charges that Republicans are raising the bar too high by advocating that everyone attempting to cast a vote actually has to prove they have a right to cast a vote. Linking rights with responsibility is alien thinking to liberals like Alter.

Conveniently, he fails to mention that tightening voter procedures was a reaction to ACORN registering 400,000 fraudulent voters in 2008, or the 113 convictions of voter fraud in Minnesota, or the four in Troy, N. Y., and that the Indiana secretary of state — ironically the person in charge of the state's voting process — was convicted of voter fraud. He was Republican.

Alter also fails to mention that in 19 states you don't have to prove who you are to cast a vote. Yes they are big Democrat states. In 16 states, voters are required to provide only one of several forms of ID, including utility bills. That means that in 35 states you can grab your neighbor's mail and cast his vote for your candidate. No one can catch you voting a second or third time, if you don't have to prove who you are the first time. The 35 states that don't require proof to vote control 232 electoral votes.

Elected and appointed Democrats are using the power of their offices to stop poll workers from verifying the identity of voters. In Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Minnesota and New Hampshire, Democratic governors vetoed photo ID laws passed by the legislature.

Eric Holder, the attorney general, has stopped photo ID requirements in Texas and South Carolina.

I think the reason liberal Democrats are afraid of laws that require a voter to provide proof of identity is because they know from experience that non-citizens, like the dead, have a history of voting reliably for Democrats.

Election Day is the one day where the process is more important than the result. Citizens will accept an outcome they view as unfavorable if they are confident in the process. Suspect the motives of those who oppose common-sense measures to improve the integrity of our voting process. To paraphrase an old MasterCard commercial, proving who you are to vote is inconvenient; having the electorate confident of the process is priceless.

Steve Emerson

Valrico

Comments