The NY Times Is Full Of It

Tonight, I noticed yet another editorial in the New York Times trying to convince us that the new Georgia Voter I.D. law is unconstitutional. They open their editorial making us believe that it's a return of the "poll tax".

n 1966, the Supreme Court held that the poll tax was unconstitutional. Nearly 40 years later, Georgia is still charging people to vote, this time with a new voter ID law that requires many people without driver's licenses – a group that is disproportionately poor, black and elderly – to pay $20 or more for a state ID card. Georgia went ahead with this even though there is not a single place in the entire city of Atlanta where the cards are sold. The law is a national disgrace.

Until recently, Georgia, like most states, accepted many forms of identification at the polls. But starting this month, it is accepting only government-issued photo ID's. People with driver's licenses are fine. But many people without them have to buy a state ID card to vote, at a cost of $20 for a five-year card or $35 for 10 years.

They make it a point to remind us that this law will affect a group that is disproportionately poor, black, and elderly. They keep saying the same thing every time.

Here is a quote from their editorial on July 20, 2005:

Secretary of State Cathy Cox has said she cannot recall a single case during her tenure when anyone impersonated a voter.

and here is a quote from today's editorial:

Ms. Cox says she is unaware of a single documented case in recent years of fraud through impersonation of a voter at the polls.

Since they are so consistent in repeating themselves, I will follow suit.

Do any of these "disproportionately poor, black, and elderly" voters have bank accounts?

You know, the account in which they deposit their paychecks, welfare checks, or social security checks? Every bank in the country requires a legal form of government issued photo identification in order to open such an account. That same government issued identification is also required to cash checks or make withdrawals. You can bet that a great majority of those "disproportionately poor, black, and elderly" voters have no problem getting their checks cashed.

Do any of these "disproportionately poor, black, and elderly" voters need help obtaining such a form of identification? The State of Georgia Department of Driver Services offers the following:

Georgia law now provides for the issuance of a free identification card to citizens over age eighteen (18) who are registered voters. In order to be eligible for a free identification card, the voter must be indigent and have no acceptable proof of identity to use when voting. These free identification cards are issued at all Customer Service Centers and are valid for ten (10) years.

What if these "disproportionately poor, black, and elderly" voters cannot make it to the Dept. of Driver Services?

The State of Georgia has a bus travelling around the state issuing the i.d. cards in remote locations so those who might not have transportation can also obtain the free identification cards. Then again, if those in remote locations do not have transportation they will not be showing up on election day anyway. Right? If they can show up on election day, I bet the great majority of them drove to the polling place.

Imagine that. The State of Georgia is doing everything in it's power to make sure people have access to the Department of Driver Services facilities, and they are making sure that those who cannot afford legal identification have a means of obtaining it at no charge.

If I remember correctly, most cities and/or states have vagrancy laws which require people to carry photo identification. So what's the problem?

Why does the New York Times have such a problem with this issue? This law simply requires people to guarantee that the vote they cast is a legitimate one. Why does the N.Y. Times have a problem with legitimacy?

I find it strange that they find it necessary to devote so much space to this issue, yet they are hard-pressed to write an editorial with any new original "revelations" that say anything different than "the big mean old Republicans are trying to prevent the disproportionately poor, black, and elderly voters of Georgia (aka Democrats) from voting".

How original.