Sunday, January 30, 2011

Why do Democrats oppose ballot integrity? ~ By Tom Tancredo

That there is a serious debate over this proposal may be another indicator of cultural balkanization. Maybe we as a society are losing sight of the special quality and unique privileges of citizenship. It is possible that what is under attack in this instance is not the burden of producing birth certificates or naturalization papers – which we must do on numerous other occasions in our lives – but an attack on the concept of citizenship itself.
Tom Tancredo asks several great questions in light of a decision by a legislative committee in Colorado not to put forth a proposal to require the proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. The obvious goal of the legislation was to keep ballot integrity, and an attempt to keep voting limited to natural born or naturalized citizens. The Democrats on the committee out-voted their Republican counterparts, and Tom explains why their excuse is invalid.
If the Democratic Party wishes to grant illegal aliens the right to vote, it should be honest and propose a law to that effect instead of insulting our intelligence with talk of "lifestyle issues." That proposal might win support in some quarters, and might even be enacted into law some day if a majority of Americans come to think in terms now popular in the Colorado Democrat Caucus.

Why do Democrats oppose ballot integrity?
By Tom Tancredo

January 29, 2011 ~ 1:00 am Eastern

© 2011

Last Wednesday in Colorado, a committee of the State Senate voted to kill a bill to require proof of citizenship to register to vote. The vote was along party lines: All three Democrat legislators voted against the bill, and the committee's two Republicans voted for it.

Why has the integrity of our voter rolls become a partisan issue?

The main argument heard against the proposal was that it would impose significant burdens on some individuals with unconventional "lifestyles." A utility bill ought to be enough, apparently.

Another bogus argument is that somehow the requirement to show a birth certificate or naturalization papers violates a person's civil rights. But federal courts have ruled many times that the requirement for basic documentary evidence of citizenship is not an onerous burden intended to obstruct voting by any minority of citizens. This argument, in fact, turns logic on its head, but that does not deter the opponents of ballot integrity.

We are not talking here about producing birth certificates to vote on Election Day, only for registering to vote, which people do only when they register the first time or move across state lines. Very little identification is required to vote on Election Day, but that is a different topic.

Shouldn't there be some reasonable safeguards to guarantee that the votes of qualified electors are not canceled out by the votes of persons who are not citizens? Evidently, that idea is now controversial among Colorado Democrat leaders.

Admittedly, given the current technology available for counterfeit documents, the requirement of a birth certificate is not a foolproof method of establishing citizenship. But it should be an acceptable minimum standard.

The concept of ballot integrity is so fundamental that it is hard for ordinary citizens to comprehend opposition to such basic safeguards as proof of citizenship. Does the Democratic Party have a vested interest in lax standards for voter registration?


Be sure to check out
johnny2k's Tea Party Gear!

No comments:

Post a Comment