Voter ID -- makes complete sense

Let's see, I need ID to go on an airplane. I need ID to get into an office building. I need ID to buy a beer at Yankee Stadium. I need to have my ID (driver's license) when driving a car or renting a car.

There is no legitimate reason to be opposed to requiring a valid ID to vote.

The only reasons to oppose it seem to be to encourage voter fraud and voting by illegals.


Voter ID and Illegal Aliens
August 20, 2010 4:24 PM

By Hans A. von Spakovsky

The latest Rasmussen poll on voter ID is sure to frustrate liberal advocacy organizations like the NAACP and the League of Women Voters that oppose commonsense proposals to ensure the integrity of our election process. They have been waging a losing litigation battle against states to try to prevent them from implementing photo ID requirements.

Rasmussen reports that an overwhelming majority of likely voters (82 percent) believe all voters should show photo ID before they are allowed to vote (that includes a majority in every demographic group). Only 14 percent disagree. This is the highest level of support for photo ID since Rasmussen started polling the question in 2006.

On a related issue, the majority of voters said ballots should be printed only in English. The Justice Department, by contrast, has threatened to sue Cuyahoga County, Ohio, unless it prints ballots in Spanish.

And 56 percent of voters oppose the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Arizona over its immigration law. In fact, 54 percent think Eric Holder should be spending his time suing sanctuary cities, something the Justice Department has specifically said it will not do.
A majority (59 percent) also hope that their own states will pass a law similar to Arizona’s, which helps explain why CNS is reporting that 22 states “are now in the process of drafting or seeking to pass legislation similar to Arizona’s law against illegal immigration.”

Forcing the Justice Department to wage litigation battles in 22 states would be a good tactic both legally and politically. There is no doubt that it would lead to numerous losses by Justice in court decisions completely contrary to the legally dubious decision issued by the Arizona judge. Politically, it would help illustrate the complete bankruptcy of the Obama administration’s enforcement policy to citizens in every state.