WANTED: LESS ELECTION FRAUD, AND MORE VOTERS WITH PRIDE IN THE ELECTORAL PROCESS

Common practices like boarding an airplane and purchasing Sudafed require photo ID, and we should expect nothing less for the protection of our right to vote.  Governor Pat McCrory, upon signing North Carolina's new voter ID law.

When I turned 21, I walked several blocks to the courthouse, where I proudly entered the office of the county clerk and registered to vote.  For me, this was a serious affirmation of my coming of age as an American.  The very fact that I expended a little bit of effort in the act was a sign that I would take very seriously the right for which so many had sacrificed so much.  Compare that with practices prevalent today, which assist citizens to register in almost any old place - even including their homes - and it is not difficult to discern that not only does the system not inspire pride but that it also has opened itself to the great likelihood of fraud.

Shortly after the 2012 election, there was a story hitting the various media of an election judge in Ohio who had managed to vote 8 times - all the votes were for President Obama, of course.  If that election judge managed 8 votes in one election, just imagine how she might have facilitated the same type of behavior for others coming to her polling place.

For one not to have a photo ID in this day and age seems virtually impossible.  I was thinking just yesterday of all the situations in which one is required to show a picture-ID:  to check into a hotel, to drink a beer, to get a library card, to board a plane, to buy a train ticket, to cash a check, etc.  It goes without saying that, in the 21st century, one does not get far in life without a photo ID.

In Texas, non-driving, state-issued photo IDs are available at any driving license office at a cost of $6.00 for those over the age of 60. while those 59 and younger pay $16.00.  At last count, in the congressional district in which I live, there were 23 sites where the service was available.

As for those who oppose photo IDs for voters and scream to the high heavens that voting fraud is negligible in the U.S., may I remind them of the many incidents that were uncovered in Florida and California of non-U.S. citizens voting in 2012.  Also, notably in New York, there was a long-standing practice of the registration of individuals with fictitious names, followed by political operatives voting those names on election day.  And, don't forget, that ACORN and other so-called "community organizing groups" have a sleazy past of all sorts of tomfoolery in the registration process. Then there are probably more than 50,000 people registered to vote in both Florida and New York.  If it seems that this is a minimal number of people voting in elections without the right to do so, please recall that it wasn't so long ago that a certain close election in Florida was hanging by a mere "chad."

Democratic critics of photo ID charge that such a requirement will serve only to diminish election turnouts; however, in state after state which has adopted a photo ID requirement, turnouts have increased.  Using Georgia as an example, after photo ID legislation was passed, the state sent mobile bus units into neighborhoods across the state, which were equipped with the on-site ability to register voters and even to provide them with photo IDs.  In the first election after the ID requirement, voter participation shot up dramatically, and even included a 5% increase in the black vote.

Despite all of the demonstrated benefits of a photo ID requirement for the electorate, nonsensical challenges to state law still occur.  Lately, the ACLU is bringing suit against North Carolina's new law; and, in Texas, the Holder DOJ is ever more determined to continually scrutinize the Lone Star State's legislation on voting regulations.

In deep South Texas, where the votes of an unsophisticated electorate are bought with barbecued chicken and beer and where campaign workers regularly load semi-comatose voters from adult day care centers into vans bound for polling places, election chicanery has been for too long a way of life.  The state requirement for photo IDs is a start in the right direction; but, to bring places like Cameron and Hidalgo counties into conformity with above-board voting procedures will entail close supervision from Austin.

Looked at closely, the opposition to a photo ID from certain quarters should not be surprising.  After all, since 2009, the U.S. has had to bear the weight from its highest echelons of a Chicago and Cook County mentality, which has never had a reputation for clean politics.  But, then again all the arguments against photo ID when taken to their logical conclusion, obviously come out lacking.  Thus, all the Democrats are left with are their usual faux-cries of "Racism! Racism!"  For all practical purposes, the case against photo ID collapses under the weight of its own absurdity.