More than a few folks are probably wondering why I keep talking about vote fraud and photo ID. TEA Party Republicans more or less plugged up the domicile loophole that invited out of state influence in our local New Hampshire elections, and even passed a voter ID requirement. So where’s the fire?
Democrats are still lying about the issue, and if permitted any kind of majority in state government will do everything in their power to reverse the protections we’ve managed to gain. So it is essential that we reveal the half-truths and outright lies they will continue to peddle all the way to November and beyond.
The facts are simple. Nothing Democrats claim about Domicile, photo ID, or voter fraud….is true.
Let’s start with ID. Democrats insist that requiring ID is, …racist, vote suppression, an unreasonable expense–and some have even called it a poll tax, and according to New Hampshire Democrat state party Chairman Ray Buckley
… it would have stopped countless law-abiding New Hampshire citizens from exercising their constitutional right to vote.
Countless.
This is an important word because it means that Ray can’t count how many people, because there are none to count. There is no reason any legitimate resident could not vote with an ID requirement, and in fact, ID is good for participation.
Did you know that everywhere photo ID has been implemented the number of people voting goes up? You want to know why? Law-abiding citizens who feel like the system is doing more to protect their vote, are more likley to vote. It has been demonstrated over and over again, even in counties that are predominantly black, and poor, where the racist, intimidation, and keeping out poor voters memes would have the most impact if true. Requiring ID, increases participation for every race, class, and gender. Turnout numbers prove it and poll after poll shows us that all the groups Democrats claim would be harmed by an ID requirement are in favor of a photo ID requirement to vote–because they feel like their vote matters when they know someone is trying to protect it. And when ID requirements are put in place, these groups turn out in even larger numbers to vote.
So in reality, objecting to photo ID is more likley to institutionalize voter suppression as people, unsure if their vote will even matter, stop voting. You are free to speculate on their motivations.
Another problem with the Democrats objection to ID is the idea that people wont have it and that requiring them to get it presents an undue burden.
In New Hampshire, there are around 770,000 registered voters. There are approximately 950,000 drivers licensed in the granite State state. At it’s peak we have had as many as 750,000 people in the labor force.
A drivers license is an acceptable form of ID to vote.
Federal law requires that every one of those employed persons have verified US citizenship before they can be legally hired, which requires what?….the same kind of ID that one could present to vote at the polls.
Medicaid requires a similar verification of US citizenship–it is a violation of Federal Law for non-citizens to collect Medicaid–so anyone eligible for those kinds of services would also have to have the necessary ID to receive them; and if you want any other kind of state assistance, like food stamps for example (EBT), anyone in your house 16 or older must have a valid Photo ID. (There are roughly 165,000 New Hampshire residents accessing Medicaid benefits, and nearly 115,000 are on food stamps.)
And now that the state has gone out of its way to provide an ID for anyone legally able to vote in the Granite State who still might not have one, the idea that an ID requirement puts any kind of burden on anyone actually eligible to vote is simply absurd.
Consider…you need the same ID just to get a job. Are Democrats like Chairman Buckley prepared to argue that this ID requirement violates the so-called right to a fair or “living” wage, which one could not possibly collect if they lacked the proper ID to even get hired in the first place?
How about it New Hampshire Democrats? Anyone got an answer to that question? Probably not.
So ID is not racist, it increases participation, a majority of every group in America approves of it, and just being here legally makes it almost impossible not to already have the proper ID needed. So could it possibly be a poll tax?
I’ve not bothered to research whether any New Hampshire Democrats have tried this excuse, but I have an answer for it if you need one. The argument goes that, even if the ID is free, having to drive to go get it constitutes a cost that is equivalent to a poll tax. The problem with that argument is that unless you live in walking distance to your town clerk or polling place, and you feel safe walking there, then the act of registering and voting incurs costs to legally cast a ballot regardless of the requirement of ID. If you have to drive to the polls, according to this vapid line of thought, you have been taxed for the privilege of voting.
Dumb.
Yet, given the opportunity, New Hampshire Democrats would roll back any ID requirement as quickly as they could. The real reasons for that are either a desire to suppress participation, or to allow some other sector of the population to vote that would not otherwise be able to, to their direct political advantage.
In Part two we we will visit (and revisit) the argument that there is no voter fraud in New Hampshire, and why that lie exists—to hide the real reason Democrats object to Photo ID and proof of domicile in New Hampshire.
