Misters Sahn and Bassett make fraudulent arguments against the voter ID law and the Sun-Gazette's support of the law.
Per Sahn, " many people especially the poor, simply do not know they need one "(ID). How is this possible in a country in which the poor nearly universally have TV?
This has been a widely publicized, nearly inescapable, debate on the national and local level.
Those who would not get information from TV, newspapers, or conversation would have to be hermits.
Those who know about the law and want to get ID can do it. Viviette Applewhite, a prime example according to the anti-ID crowd of the elector who could not get an ID and a plaintiff in court, got one on her first try.
An impartial newspaper employee even testifies that the PennDOT employee who issued the ID did not show any sign of recognizing her as a plaintiff in the ID suit.
Big Mistake, ACLU! It is harder to get a child registered in kindergarten than to get an ID.
Indeed, photo ID locations are not as convenient as polling places. Are welfare offices? People seem to get to those locations when necessary. People can, with photo ID in wallet, drive a friend or family member to the photo center or he or she could take a bus. The non-working poor have available to them free or very inexpensive transportation not available to the non-poor.
The real issue is not why one would require a photo ID to vote, but why one would not want to require a photo ID. The ID is a tool to prevent fraud. Poll watchers and judges of election do not know all of the voters. Should Viviette Applewhite die before the next election, an ID would stop another from voting in her name.
There is evidence of voter fraud. In the 1990s, a Philadelphia election that determined control of the state senate was thrown out by a federal judge because of massive fraud.
The failure of Democrat DAs in big cities to find voter fraud does not mean that it does not exist. My failure to see a deer while hunting does not disprove the existence of deer.
In a district of a single-party jurisdiction one or a few fraudulent votes could nominate a person and virtually assure his or her election in the general election. An ID requirement has never been shown to suppress voter turnout.
Mr. Bassett is correct that voting is a constitutional right. It is just not true that it is an absolute right. States were given the power to regulate elections, and therefore voter eligibility and requirements, in Article I, Section 4. States routinely deny voting to convicted felons and prisoners.
Congress has passed amendments concerning who will have the franchise and to outlaw poll taxes, but they direct the states as to who may not be denied the vote, not who is an eligible voter.
A free photo ID could not be construed to be a tax. Over time, Congress has stepped into the voting issue with many requirements, but it has yet to forbid the States policing of eligibility and fraud. Electors must be registered in the district in which they wish to vote in order to cast a legal ballot.
Why not prove it unless fraud is the objective?
William C. Dincher
Submitted by Virtual Newsroom