The Republican Attack on Your Right to Vote is Being Ignored

By on July 29, 2012 in GOPocrisy

If you have to stop people from voting to win, your ideas suck.

Two startling admissions by Republican officials in the past few months have been noted and then allowed to fade into the torrent of information fed at us each and every day. We cannot let this undeniable proof that our democracy is being subverted be allowed to slip into our browsing history like a nipslip or hilarious Bill Murray sighting. This is one instance when the power of the Internet to share and reshare information must be utilized to spread what the media won’t or can’t.

I’ll risk injecting all the gravity I have to say a simple fact: your right to vote is at stake in the 2012 election.

The GOP plot to disenfranchise voters has been exposed for what it is: an attempt to subvert our democratic republic and install those who will serve those who fund the Republican Party. The sacred right to vote, the most crucial civil right, must be defended.

Look at the evidence. It comes directly from the mouths of Republicans.

Republicans have admitted they’re after your fight to vote. Pennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai (R) was listing the state GOP’s accomplishments. The kicker:

“Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”

Following this, the Party admitted there wasn’t one case of voter fraud they could name, the alleged impetus for the Voter ID law. This week the Republican governor admitted he didn’t even know which IDs are acceptable under the law.

The only purpose for this law is to stop Democrats from voting. We have to thank the GOP in Pennsylvania for making that clear.

This isn’t a new tactic. Greg Palast’s book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy documents how Florida’s GOP purged voter roles and prevented black voters from casting voters in 2000. But it wasn’t until this last week that a former Republican official admitted what Palast found.

Florida’s former Republican Party Chair said in a sworn deposition:

“I was upset because the political consultants and staff were talking about voter suppression and keeping blacks from voting.”

You’ve heard that voter IDs are a poll tax, new Jim Crow laws. The profound injustice of targeting African-Americans’ right to vote less than fifty years after it was finally enshrined into law should make all patriotic Americans ill.

What we all suspected is true. The GOP is seeking to prevent the most vulnerable from voting in hopes of getting into power in implementing an agenda that serves the most powerful.

We have to stop pretending that this tradition of excluding the powerless from elections wasn’t built into this republic from its inception. Women, blacks and white males who didn’t own property were excluded from voting  for generations.

The right of citizens of all genders and races to vote and determine their own fate was an innovation of the last one hundred years. It’s part of a progressive tradition that made America great, that made it possible for us to build a middle class, that made it possible for us to defeat the fascist and communist menaces.

Just as good progressives should stand up and say “We should boycott Chick-fil-A but never prevent them from doing business,” good conservatives need to say “If any American’s right to vote is denied, my right can be denied.”

Freedom requires the right to vote. Republicans oppose that right and Americans need to know why.

[CC image by hjl]


  • Pingback: MIKE TURZAI REPUBLICAN, ANNOUNCES VOTER ID ALLOWS GOVERNOR ROMNEY TO WIN PENNSYLVANIA | 3CHICSPOLITICO

  • Pingback: The Republican Attack on Your Right to Vote is Being Ignored | Just As I Thought

  • Mark Witten

    US citizens have to show or carry ID for many, many reasons. Driving, boarding an airplane, buying liquor or cigarettes, getting a job, applying for insurance, etc. The list is nearly endless. There is no reason that voting should be any different. And considering that there are people in this country that don’t have the right to vote, why wouldn’t we check IDs? There is only one reason some people don’t want ID checked in order to vote when the same ID is required to drive, open a bank account etc. That reason (as if anyone doesn’t really know) is to allow people these people to vote even though they are not allowed.

    It is typically the Democrats who rely upon such votes because they support “illegal immigration” and amnesty…pandering to these people. The reason they support such things is because they see this segment of society as “free votes”. The Democrats play the game of giving illegals everything they can, keeping people on welfare, etc. with the goal of government (preferably their brand of government) becoming “Mommy & Daddy”, giving allowances to their children and telling them what they can and can’t do. They want government to be the supreme law, the single decision maker and more, OVER the American people…not FOR or BY the American people. Don’t believe me? Read the words of the Democratic leaders who have stated it quite clearly.

    So…if you wish to be controlled by a government, have all your money collected and be given an allowance, be told what you can and can’t (and have to) buy…and I’m sure we haven’t seen the worst yet…go ahead and vote for this administration who has already said that they know better than the idiot public (Pelosi). Or…vote for a government that while it may still suck, doesn’t try to control the “livestock” we are considered by Obama and his minions.

    • http://www.facebook.com/riley.sloan.3 Riley Sloan

      yea… a lot of illegals in the keystone state. well thought through. oh and pelosi isn’t a member of Obama’s administration. And Democrats don’t support illegal immigration, they support regulating immigration so that we don’t have a bunch of people under the radar in our country, because ‘cracking down’ has worked oh so well to stop the flow of illegals. And maybe Democrats think a motherly government helping its underpriviledged is a good idea, but they don’t think that a fatherly government telling people what they can/can’t do socially is ok like many republicans do. And who cares that this takes the right to vote from thousands who are GUARANTEED that right under the constitution? Why let the constitution, or even the basic concept of Democracy, get in the way of “allowing Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania”? After all, we need to keep Obama from “controlling us”, and the logical way for us to do that is by passing legislation restricting the rights of US citizens. And if it helps Romney win the election, just another perk, right? So, um … good use of inflammatory language… and good try I guess. You could work on the whole ‘facts’ thing, but hey, why let that stop ya?

      • Mark Witten

        I don’t want to battle, but I do want to address. You are correct…Pelosi isn’t part of Obama’s administration, just part of the Democratic party. She used to be speaker of the house…the house of Democratic majority when she said those words.

        And there are a lot of illegals in PA. I know two families personally (via work) and also know that a number of 9/11 terrorist cells spent time here.

        Cracking down on illegal immigration would work, if we actually cracked down.

        Yes…Obama wants to control us. So does the Republican party, just not quite as bad as the Democrats. They want to take as much money from us as they can, pay themselves as much as they can, decide guns, health care and everything else for us because we are too “stupid” to decided for ourselves. Regulate soda, food, guns, health care, taxes that aren’t taxes, what you drive and believe me…it can only get worse.

        I don’t like Romney much either. I just want to do my work, raise my children, live my life and have government say as far away as possible because EVERYTHING government gets involved in gets screwed up. I’m not “stupid” and don’t need a “Mommy and Daddy” anymore. Simple as that.

        • Steve

          “EVERYTHING government gets involed in gets screwed up”

          Silly statement. Do you mean traffic lights? The police? The, um, identications needed to do nearly everything so people can own their own homes. Do you mean bank regulations? Tax regulations? So the wealthy don’t become nobles and go back to a feudal system? Do you have any idea what life was like when gov’t was not involved, as it was through most of civilized history? You need to read some history, Mark.

          And both of you should stopp with the Oedipus “mommy/daddy” stuff. It’s not about parenting, it’s about living together as a community to make things better (ie laws) No, the gov’t isn’t perfect because it’s just people, your neighbours and friends, working at a job likeyou work at a job and mostly doing the best they can. The “gov’t” is not a separate entity, you know. And when you identify it as such, it betrays how little you understand the workings of leadership and how it functions within human society.

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LYCCVVSUZTX7FCPEEOQ46CX2SA Crash

            So are there no problems with any of those supposedly great things you just referenced? Let’s take traffic lights. How big a fan are you of red light cameras? How about the cameras that are watching and recording you at every intersection and any place the government has decided to put a camera for “safety”? You cool with that? I’m sure you are. How about the police? While they mostly do good, how many are there? I live in a suburb of Chicago and there are literally thousands and thousands of cops in this area. There is the State police and then the county police for each county and then each city has their own police force. I’m not kidding. Each city here has their own cops too. Of course they are free right?

            No one is calling for an end to government. Smart people, those who don’t vote Democrat, want limited government. There are functions that the government must and should perform. If you don’t think that the government is becoming too large and intrusive then you need to go read some history yourself before you go on lecturing anyone else.

          • groopaloop

            Well done with the “limited government,” Republican voters. How’s that working for you, with the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, invasion of the bedroom, and other big government things proposed by Bush and opposed by Democrats. If you’re too clueless or brainwashed to recognize that BOTH parties are in favor of big government but in different areas, then I don’t think you should be lecturing anybody when it comes to understanding American history.

            I’m sure you’d be much more in favor of eliminating government regulation of traffic, and allowing private landowners to set their own restrictions regarding who can travel along roads on their land, eh? Or replacing police officers with vigilantes who don’t get paid? Because, you know, privatization of everything worked so well in Feudal Europe (or our racist Minutemen militia down south, or deregulation of the banks that led to the recession). Fact is, the countries with the best quality of life have much more significant government involvement than we’ve got here in the USA, so before you start whining about the heavy hand of government, you’ll also want to study up a bit on foreign affairs.

  • Jim Skibbie

    Mark… Imagine that there are legitimate Americans who don’t have the means or ability to get an ID, but they are completely ‘legal’ Americans. For them you are saying ‘Oh well, sucks to be you?’

    In Minnesota we face a constitution-changing ballot measure to require an ID to vote. As one politician stated, “The voter ID ballot initiative is a solution looking for a problem.” The percentage of voter fraud is so minuscule/non-existant, that I can’t see how potentially causing voter disenfranchisement would be at all worth the risk to a non-existent problem.

    The voter ID ballot initiative is clearly nothing more than a power play by Republicans to create a system where it would be legal to disenfranchise voters.

    • Mark Witten

      While I can “imagine” that…I don’t see it as a reality. For example…if there is such a person then they don’t have a job (need ID), don’t drive (no license), they don’t own a home or rent (have to show ID), don’t have any insurance or bank account (have to have an ID), don’t smoke or drink (or look obviously old enough)…etc. Does such a person exist? I don’t believe so. Maybe…just maybe some hermit living in a cabin in the woods I guess. ID is needed to function legally day to day. It should be required for any important action…as it is for virtually everything EXCEPT voting.

      • KJ

        I think you’re making some unfair assumptions. I have employment that does not require an ID – I am a freelancer. There are plenty of people who don’t show ID to live in their homes – when their spouse/family/friends own them. I do have a license, but seeing as I live in New York City, I don’t own or regularly drive a car. Obviously I do show my ID when I rent a car, but I know plenty of people in my own neighborhood (residential, safe, desirable even) who don’t have a license because they grew up here and just take the subway or a car service. So yes, these people do exist and they exist in a neighborhood where I live and I am ignoring the offense I take at your assumptions because it is clear you don’t live in a place like Brooklyn (with a population over 1 million, it is a place where citizens can have a significant impact on elections). There is one very good reason why people don’t want an ID required for voting. It’s expensive to get an ID. When I had a part time job at a retail store a few years ago, my coworkers worked full time but still required Section 8 housing because their income was not enough to pay for an apartment in New York (most of them lived in Queens and the Bronx, it seemed – none of them lived in Manhattan as I did at the time). There are people who are birthright citizens working in this country and barely making ends meet, often ignoring hungry children when they can’t afford to buy them dinner, even at McDonald’s. It is true. There are many of them. To require them to pay $80 for an ID would be to keep their family from eating for a week. And guess what? These folks aren’t flying anywhere and they aren’t showing a photo ID to get a job (there are documents you can present instead of a photo ID to prove your identity where employment is concerned). This is not some conspiracy theory that Democrats have cooked up to ensure multiple votes by the same person, or so that foreigners can vote in US elections. This is real concern that the already under-served people of our nation will be left out of the one system that might actually make a positive difference for them.

        • JerseyShur

          If they pay $80 for an ID which by the way is a ridiculous sum, they will not turn around and sell their vote for $25 will they? now the crooked politicians will have to pay $100 for their votes… just saying

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LYCCVVSUZTX7FCPEEOQ46CX2SA Crash

          And why do they have to pay $80 for an ID? Because government taxes the hell out of everything. So these folks who don’t ever get an ID don’t care how much one costs and will continue to vote for people who do nothing but raises prices on the government services we are forced to use. They don’t like an $80 ID charge? Then vote for people who will control costs. If they have no skin in the game, they won’t care and they will just keep voting for pay raises.

          • http://eclectablog.com Eclectablog

            Dude, that might be the lamest comment ever posted on this blog. I’m leaving it up for every to point at and mock.

          • groopaloop

            So……those without IDs should go use the IDs they currently don’t have, to vote for the party forcing them to buy IDs they can’t afford, if they want to participate in what should be a free and open democracy? Excellent point, sir.

        • http://www.facebook.com/leisa.d.massingill Leisa Davis Massingill

          State issued ID’s cost around $12. If your state is charging $80, then everyone in your state is getting ripped off.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=645908925 Michael De Armond

    If showing an ID to vote is restricting my right to vote then a law forcing me to show 2 forms of ID to purchase a firearm is DEFINATLY an infringement on the second amendment

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LYCCVVSUZTX7FCPEEOQ46CX2SA Crash

      You have hit the nail right on the head with that comment. Where are the liberal cries of infringing on my 2nd Amendment rights?

      • K Klems

        ‘Well-regulated’

      • Clint Peters

        I’ve down-voted everything else you’ve said here (as every other comment you’ve made on this article has been egregiously false) but this time I didn’t. I personally think the 2nd amendment is too broad and should be altered, but as it stands now? Yes, the mere existence of various checks and balances in place are a violation of your 2nd amendment rights.

        NB: I’m of the opinion that the founding fathers wanted you to be able to fight using whatever arms were effective and that you could afford, without regard to their destructiveness. The founding fathers used vague language so as to make your constitution rather flexible. Re: the 2nd amendment, this vagueness was deliberate in the sense that they never wanted the people to be hamstrung using obsolete or ineffective equipment—ensuring that both tyranny from foreign aggressors and tyranny from domestic oppressors can be overthrown. Conventional weapons, while often terrifying in terms of their potential destructiveness, aren’t a threat to civilisation as we know it. Biological, chemical, and nuclear weaponry are, and considering how vague the 2nd amendment is (and what the founding fathers’ stated intentions regarding its creation were) I am of the opinion that currently even restrictions regarding these are unconstitutional. Understandably I think that those three categories of weaponry, for the moment at least, should be kept out of Joe Average’s hands. The precise rewording of the 2nd amendment so as to allow all conventional arms—and eventually allow the three categories I singled out if it ever became necessary while still managing to keep those three categories under control until that moment—is an exercise I leave to the reader.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Kitty-Smith/100000047475312 Kitty Smith

      Wait wait wait, are you conflating your ability to affect your government (via voting) with your ability to purchase deadly weapons? Just checking, because if you can’t tell the difference….

  • http://www.facebook.com/jason.lightfoot.39 Jason Lightfoot

    For most of the example of needing ID given (drive, buy alcohol, etc..) none of those are Constitutional rights. Voting is.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LYCCVVSUZTX7FCPEEOQ46CX2SA Crash

      And? So that should be there is more of a requirement to prove who you are.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lynnette.shepard.5 Lynnette Shepard

    check…got it. so lets vote for obama again…he just says were stupid. NOT

  • Logician

    Did you move shortly before the election? Under these laws, since you don’t have an updated license, no voting. Need to register on election day? Sorry, not allowed. Can’t take the time off of work to drive to the county office, because you’re in the working poor? Too bad, guess you can’t vote this year.

    It’s not that most people don’t have ID’s. The laws require quite a bit more than that, and many of the requirements are difficult for the poor and elderly, who typically vote Democrat.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_LYCCVVSUZTX7FCPEEOQ46CX2SA Crash

      Cry me a river. The rest of us figure out how to manage these oh so difficult problems. Why do you feel like you need to hand people a crutch? If you want something badly enough, you will find a way to make it happen.

      • groopaloop

        It’s that kind of ignorance that threatens so many rights we have worked decades to achieve in this country.. You have no concept of somebody whose life is legitimately difficult, probably because you grew up (and remain) an entitled, arrogant schmuck too narcissistic to bother looking beyond your own life and considering somebody else’s struggles. This isn’t about handing somebody a crutch. It’s about preventing Republicans from erecting speed bumps.

  • JerseyShur

    I do not mind proving I am who I am to vote, why should anyone mind? in the early years of America you had to own property to vote imagine that?

  • Patty Kuhner

    Stop it, they are only stopping illegals from voting.

  • Nico

    You need an ID to vote but we don’t care to know who is bankrolling our elections…Democracy is in tatters.

  • Darcy

    Having a form of identification is required for employment, to operate a vehicle, to attend school, to receive general relief, to receive unemployment, etc. Identification is also extremely easy to obtain at a nominal fee and the DMV in many states offer reduced application fees. Requiring identification to vote does not disenfranchise anyone, it is merely to confirm your identity. My deceased mother was on the voting registry for almost 2 years before the correction was made. During this time, when I voted in my polling place, someone had voted under my mother’s name. Voter fraud is a problem, and requiring identification is a very basic prerequisite to vote that I was surprised was not already required.

  • Jorge

    You should have some skin in the game to be able to vote. We have people living off society, who do you think they will vote for?

    • http://eclectablog.com Eclectablog

      All American citizens have “skin in the game” whether they receive assistance from the government or not.
      Ignorant comment.

eXTReMe Tracker