I don’t know how many editorials I’ve read from the numerous Observers in the state of North Carolina about evil republicans trying to suppress black voters. We all know it’s a lie. How is it unreasonable to require a person to show an I.D. at the polls? The answer is it’s not. What about liberal assertions that there is no voter fraud in North Carolina? That too is a lie.
Carolina Journal Radio interviewed J. Christian
Adams of National Review about these issues and more. Here is an excerpt.
Kokai: In
looking at these changes, another big one that did not come up in this part of
the trial, but is a big piece of the law — voter ID. Do the Democrats and their
allies have anything on their side in saying that voter ID is somehow
discriminatory and would prevent people from heading to the polls because
they’re in a minority group?
Adams: Well, looking at the law around the country, there have been a lot of cases that have been fought that I follow: Texas, South Carolina, just to name a few. The law that North Carolina has passed makes it almost impossible not to get a voter ID. In other words, you have to try really hard to mess this up. And so it’s free, it’s easy to obtain. … If you were born to a midwife, let’s say in 1925, one of the favorite examples that the opponents will cite, you know what? Then you can go to the polls and vote and execute an affidavit to say that you had a hardship.
So there is really nobody, nobody being blocked from the polls. Contrast that to what was going on in 1960. I mean, think about that. Think about the morally bankrupt, racially discriminatory policies throughout much of the country that literally did stop people from voting. To try to claim that moral mantle from 70 years ago and to say that you can’t get a free, easy-to-use voter ID is just — frankly, it’s disgraceful.
Kokai: Now one of the things that we have heard from the proponents of many of these changes is that, “Hey, we really are just trying to tighten up the rules so that we have less of a chance of voter fraud.” And then you hear from the critics, “But there is no voter fraud. There is no evidence of voter fraud.” How do these changes fit in with this whole effort of trying to improve the integrity of the elections?
Adams: First of all, the Supreme Court of the United States said you don’t actually have to have voter fraud to pass regulations about elections. You can prevent it. You can pass a law that is to prevent it from happening.
But even given that, even given that, there is, in fact, voter fraud. North Carolina has staggering numbers of people who are registered to vote in multiple places.
Look at the city of Pembroke. There is a great example that drove this legislation. The city of Pembroke, using same-day registration — which means you just show up to vote, you haven’t registered to vote, you just show up at the polls and say, “I’m here to vote,” and you announce yourself — the city of Pembroke was so overwhelmed by bogus ballots in a local election, they had to do it over again because of same-day registration.
Adams: Well, looking at the law around the country, there have been a lot of cases that have been fought that I follow: Texas, South Carolina, just to name a few. The law that North Carolina has passed makes it almost impossible not to get a voter ID. In other words, you have to try really hard to mess this up. And so it’s free, it’s easy to obtain. … If you were born to a midwife, let’s say in 1925, one of the favorite examples that the opponents will cite, you know what? Then you can go to the polls and vote and execute an affidavit to say that you had a hardship.
So there is really nobody, nobody being blocked from the polls. Contrast that to what was going on in 1960. I mean, think about that. Think about the morally bankrupt, racially discriminatory policies throughout much of the country that literally did stop people from voting. To try to claim that moral mantle from 70 years ago and to say that you can’t get a free, easy-to-use voter ID is just — frankly, it’s disgraceful.
Kokai: Now one of the things that we have heard from the proponents of many of these changes is that, “Hey, we really are just trying to tighten up the rules so that we have less of a chance of voter fraud.” And then you hear from the critics, “But there is no voter fraud. There is no evidence of voter fraud.” How do these changes fit in with this whole effort of trying to improve the integrity of the elections?
Adams: First of all, the Supreme Court of the United States said you don’t actually have to have voter fraud to pass regulations about elections. You can prevent it. You can pass a law that is to prevent it from happening.
But even given that, even given that, there is, in fact, voter fraud. North Carolina has staggering numbers of people who are registered to vote in multiple places.
Look at the city of Pembroke. There is a great example that drove this legislation. The city of Pembroke, using same-day registration — which means you just show up to vote, you haven’t registered to vote, you just show up at the polls and say, “I’m here to vote,” and you announce yourself — the city of Pembroke was so overwhelmed by bogus ballots in a local election, they had to do it over again because of same-day registration.
Democrats are shameless rascals.
Source:
No comments:
Post a Comment