How Telling: Liberals Claim Voter ID Laws Will "Disenfranchise" Their Voters

On Wednesday, Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed a bill into law that would require voters to present photo identification before voting, rather than simply signing their name. The Drive-By Media and Democratic Party have responded with resounding claims that this bill will “disenfranchise Democrat voters.” Perhaps, if you haven’t spent your life since the age of eight being skeptical and having your ears tuned to Freudian slips like this from the Lamestreamers, you missed it. Let me repeat myself: Democrats are claiming that being required to prove that you are who you say you are would disenfranchise Democrat voters. That’s VERY interesting.


Quick poll: How many of you carry some form of legal identification with you wherever you go? Raise your hand please.

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that every hand of every adult who reads this blog is in the air. In addition, I took a poll online, and thanks to my readers here, my Twitter followers, and my Facebook friends, and would you like to know how many of those individuals not only have a photo ID but also carry it wherever they go? About 90% of them, and something tells me the other 10% have ID that they choose not to carry everywhere they go, or perhaps it’s the few readers I have who show up in my tracker as reading this from places like Iraq and Afghanistan and are serving our country (to those of you, thank you from the bottom of my heart.)

Now this poll was by no means scientific, it was no more than a straw poll. Yet I’m certain that if I DID do scientific poll, I would find that the number of eligible individuals in America who are legally able to vote (that’d be a person at least 18 years old, an American citizen, a person who has not been convicted of a felony, and who has registered to vote, for those of you from Palm Beach County, FL) who do not have any sort of legal photo ID would be miniscule.

Chances are, like most American adults, you have a driver’s license. I’m guessing that the ones of you don’t say, live in Manhattan and take the subway everywhere or for some other reason don’t have a drivers license probably have a non-driver identification card or a passport. The only people who would legitimately not have any need to get any form of legal photo identification are those who neither drive, nor ever leave the country, nor ever want to purchase any age required product, whether that be tobacco, alcohol, or for that matter cough syrup and cold relief pills, or if you want to open a bank account, or have a cell phone plan or rent an apartment, because for each of those things you need photo identification. Whether that is a driver’s license, a non-driver identification card or an Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) Card, it is almost impossible to survive in the adult world without some sort of photo identification. That is the reality of the world.

Furthermore, asking a person to demonstrate they are who they claim to be is very important when it comes to voting. Voter fraud is a serious problem. People are able to claim that they are somebody else to vote more than once, to vote when they are not registered, to vote in the name of the deceased, etc. So what, precisely, does the Democratic Party mean when they say that requiring photo ID would disenfranchise their voters?

As I demonstrated moments ago, it’s nearly impossible to function in the adult world without photo identification, whether you are black or white, male or female, young or old, rich or poor, you need to have some form of photo identification to function in society. So why would it be such a travesty to require those who are registered to vote to show that they are who they claim to be? Considering the majority of us carry our ID with us wherever we go anyway, why who precisely would it disenfranchise?

The answer, of course, is those who aren’t franchised to begin with. People who are not legitimately registered to vote, for whatever reason, would be disallowed to vote. Whether that be those voting for dead people, whether that be convicted felons, whether it be people voting twice under two different names, those individuals would be barred from voting (or voting again).

Buried deep inside this Democrat talking point is a serious issue that is brought up every single election and never dealt with. Democrats, of course, try to give us a slight of hand by claiming that Republicans are going to try to disenfranchise Democrat voters, yet election after election there are no stories of Republicans stopping Democrats from voting. In 2008, we heard stories of the New Black Panthers intimidating Republican voters in Philadelphia. We saw Harry Reid miraculously win in 2010 by about five percent when every poll leading up to the election showed him LOSING by that amount.

No, I’m not insinuating anything. I’m flat out saying that this talking point is showing a real Democrat fear: voter identification laws would stop Democrats from using fraud to win elections. And yes, to whatever degree members of ANY political party would try similar tactics; it would also stop them from such fraud as well. It’s a reasonable piece of legislation that Democrats are throwing a conniption fit over. They are showing their hand a bit. They’re telling us that voter identification would hurt their ability to steal close elections. They will claim, I guarantee it, that requiring individuals to show identification cards to vote is either comparable to Apartheid in South Africa, or maybe Nazi Germany, or how about claim it’s reminiscent of Jim Crow in the South (as usual ignoring the fact, as history demonstrates, that it was Democrats who were the party of Jim Crow) in an effort to deflect this reality. Those tactics, however, are just smoke and mirrors. The reality is simple: the only people who are “disenfranchised” by a voter identification law are those who legally shouldn’t be voting in the first place.