Voter Photos

Let's see if we can agree on a few things here.

First of all, we don't want anyone voting who isn't legally entitled to vote. No voting for people who are not citizens, no voting by tombstones, no voting by people who are currently incarcerated for felony convictions.

Second, we do want anyone who is legally entitled to vote to do so, without undue difficulty. We also agree that voting is a right, not a privilege, and the purpose of the states in this matter is to make the process as convenient as possible, not throw barriers in its way. Candidates should submit themselves to us all in the marketplace of ideas, and may the better, more persuasive person win.

Having said those two things, we recognize that occasionally a mistake will be made. From time to time someone who is not a citizen will show up at a polling place, either innocently unaware that she cannot legally vote, or maliciously trying to influence the result of the election. There are very few documented cases of this happening, however.

Now, if a mistake is  made, can we agree that it's better to allow an ineligible person to vote than it is to turn away a person who is legally entitled to vote? Voting, to repeat, is a RIGHT, and other than paying taxes is the only affirmative action many people take. We also can agree, I trust, that if the rights of any one person are denied, the rights of every person are threatened.

Regrettably, we have a history in America of voter suppression. We all know of the tricks played in the past to keep black Americans (as well as others) from voting. Literacy tests, restricted party primaries, poll taxes, and long residence requirements all have been used to prevent voting, and all these techniques have been relegated to the junkpile of history.

My own knowledge of voter suppression concerns the state of Virginia. In 1902, the Virginia legislature wrote a new state constitution which initiated a literacy test and poll tax for voting. The proposed constitution provided an exemption from the test or tax for the sons or grandsons of people who were able to vote in 1860, that is before the Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation.

Advocates for the new constitution  were by no means coy in saying what it would mean. They simply told everyone, "No white man will be disenfranchised by this constitution." The new constitution was ratified and went into effect with predicable result. Within two years the number of black men voting in Richmond fell from about 5,000 to about 500 - that is by ninety percent. Across the rest of the state the result was the same.

A decade later, debating the proposed women's suffrage amendment to the national Constitution, Virginia's legislators turned it down, reasoning that if women could vote that meant that black women would vote, that they would overcome whatever obstacles could be placed in their way, and this would be unacceptable in the Old Dominion.

That's history. I call it to our attention to remind us of what could happen, not necessarily what has happened or is presently happening. However, there seems to be nearly unanimous agreement that the voter photo id laws on the books now in some states and under consideration in some others will affect the racial and ethnic minorities, the young and the old voters more than any others.

Let us not unduly impugn the motives of people who favor these new laws, despite the fact that the leader of the Republicans in the Pennsylvania legislature is on tape saying the new law will deliver the state to Mitt Romney. Let us just say the photo id laws are a mistake and be confident they will be ruled unconstitutional.

Let us also hope I will be feeling better soon and can do things besides write blog entries. That deck out back isn't going to build itself.

(Oh, here's a good trick. For many years, Florida Democrats had a "whites only" primary on the dubious theory that a political party is like a private club, and can admit or turn away anyone they please. To make doubly sure only the proper kind of politician would be elected the voters cast ballots for two candidates in the primary, and then there would be a run-off between the two top vote getters for the nomination. That ensured that if two candidates split the segregationist vote, there would be a second chance to be sure no racial progressive could sneak through.)