You put words in my mouth. It's a fact that voter fraud is
rare in
comparison with theft and check fraud. All crime
should be fairly prosecuted.
At a bank, or even at the
scrap metal yard I patronized yesterday, it is
standard not
only to require identification but to provide a thumb-print
in
order to transact a sale. In-person voting by a properly
registered citizen is
a right that should not be contingent
on that person's economic status.
My
perception is that imposing new requirements involving
unrelated (to voter
registration) forms of identification
will prevent several orders of
magnitude more
legitimate voters from casting ballots than it would prevent
in-person voting fraud (impersonation) instances.
Please respond to the
arguments I made, that the government
issues a voter registration card when I
register to vote,
that they already require me to produce it for in-person
voting, and that the plain intent of the 1,000+ changes in
state voting laws
since the beginning of the century are
avowedly part of a "voter
caging" campaign (not my term, one used by
Bush-Gonzalez liason
Monica Goodling in her 2007
testimony before the House
Judiciary committee).
The false claims of
rampant voter impersonation at the polls
are part of the voter caging strategy.
Therefore you should
be especially skeptical of any analogy between the need
for
selective requirements for voter identification on election
day and the
need for financial accountabilty when engaging
in commerce. To most of us the
partisan motives are
apparent and well worth speaking out
against.
---
Rosser's trick: "For every proof of me, there is a
shorter proof of my negation". [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
