How low the threshold for civic responsibility?

The NY Times editorial page is now indistinguishable from the rantings of “The Nation”, the AFL-CIO, or Daily Kos. Today, they hyperventilate over the idea that Americans should present identification at the voting booth as a task worthy of Hercules, while painting Republicans as the enemy of the downtrodden in an orgy of self-righteousness:

One of the cornerstones of the Republican Party’s strategy for winning elections these days is voter suppression, intentionally putting up barriers between eligible voters and the ballot box. The House of Representatives took a shameful step in this direction yesterday, voting largely along party lines for onerous new voter ID requirements. Laws of this kind are unconstitutional, as an array of courts have already held, and profoundly undemocratic. The Senate should not go along with this cynical, un-American electoral strategy.

That’s right: a cornerstone. Right from the first sentence, the Times sets the tone with such outrageous slander that, as Blue Crab Blvd notes, it may be actionable for libel. Every adjective that follows is a falsehood: “shameful”, “onerous”, “unconstitutional” and “cynical.” Cynical, what, to expect a clean election?

The bill the House passed yesterday would require people to show photo ID to vote in 2008. Starting in 2010, that photo ID would have to be something like a passport, or an enhanced kind of driver’s license or non-driver’s identification, containing proof of citizenship. This is a level of identification that many Americans simply do not have.

How many is “many?” This seems a critical point but the Times won’t share.

The bill was sold as a means of deterring vote fraud, but that is a phony argument. There is no evidence that a significant number of people are showing up at the polls pretending to be other people, or that a significant number of noncitizens are voting.

I’m sure the Times believes voter fraud is only something that Karl Rove engineers.

Noncitizens, particularly undocumented ones, are so wary of getting into trouble with the law that it is hard to imagine them showing up in any numbers and trying to vote. The real threat of voter fraud on a large scale lies with electronic voting, a threat Congress has refused to do anything about.

Yeah, that would be a bummer if noncitizens couldn’t vote, along with dogs and the residents of Chicago cemeteries. As for electronic voting fraud, the Times doesn’t and hasn’t bothered to present any facts supporting this claim. But, you know, it’s the gospel of the Democratic Underground, so good enough.

The actual reason for this bill is the political calculus that certain kinds of people — the poor, minorities, disabled people and the elderly — are less likely to have valid ID. They are less likely to have cars, and therefore to have drivers’ licenses. There are ways for nondrivers to get special ID cards, but the bill’s supporters know that many people will not go to the effort if they don’t need them to drive.

Note that the Times specifically omits that the bill provides for free identification, framing the issue as one of “effort.” Hard to believe, but some people actually expend gas, time and energy to vote. But an ID card, also? The line stops here! By the way, I spent an hour today trying to find some statistics on how many Americans don’t have some kind of identification. It seems inconceivable that the elderly, after say 60 years, haven’t picked up something to open a bank account. Does the Times have any information – whatsoever – on how many people would be burdened by this “onerous” task of obtaining a laminated card? Either they’re too lazy to find out, or they don’t consider it necessary to prove their point.

If this bill passed the Senate and became law, the electorate would likely become more middle-aged, whiter and richer — and, its sponsors are anticipating, more Republican.
Court after court has held that voter ID laws of this kind are unconstitutional. This week, yet another judge in Georgia struck down that state’s voter ID law.

And yet other courts have upheld voter ID laws. Let’s gloss along.

Last week, a judge in Missouri held its voter ID law to be unconstitutional. Supporters of the House bill are no doubt hoping that they may get lucky, and that the current conservative Supreme Court might uphold their plan.

Hey, maybe they’ll even heed the will of the people and the 81% of Americans who believe identification should be presented at the polls.

America has a proud tradition of opening up the franchise to new groups, notably women and blacks, who were once denied it. It is disgraceful that, for partisan political reasons, some people are trying to reverse the tide, and standing in the way of people who have every right to vote.

“Disgraceful” – finally, an appropriate adjective for this self-satisfied, fact-challenged editorial.

Extra – From Don Surber: “NY Times: Let voter fraud continue” (HT: Bright & Early)