Obenshain wants "Instant Check" for Voter ID

Republicans in Virginia and elsewhere have advocated “voter integrity” bills that would impose stricter ID standards on voters. No fewer than 17 of them have been proposed in Richmond this General Assembly session.

At a rally on Capitol Square last week, former NAACP director Benjamin Chavis accused Republicans of trying to “lynch democracy.” Richmond Mayor Dwight C. Jones (D) said the GOP push was all because “there’s a brother in the White House.”

Republican lawmakers contend that the measures are needed to combat voter fraud and ensure the integrity of the voting system. They note that Virginia’s notorious discrimination at the polls was perpetrated in an era when Democrats had a monopoly on political power. They also point out that Gov. Robert F. McDonnell (R) has pushed to extend voting rights to felons who have served their sentences.

“I broaden the kind of ID,” said Sen. Stephen H. Martin (R-Chesterfield). “These puzzling arguments that they’ve been bringing in front of me — I will tell you that one lady came into committee and actually said . . . that we’re targeting blacks because they’re more likely to forget [their identification]. I didn’t even respond.

A bill that passed in the Senate on Thursday would require a five-day waiting period before a newly registered voter can receive an absentee ballot. Sen. Chap Petersen (D-Fairfax) mocked the idea because of Republican opposition to waiting periods for gun purchases. The bill’s patron, Sen. Mark D. Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg), countered that he’d gladly trade the waiting period for an instant federal check on voters. It passed 21 to 20, with Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling (R) casting a tiebreaking vote.

Click to expand...

sparkman2 said:

Correct me if I'm wrong but the US Constitution does not explicitly ensure a persons right to vote. It does however ensures a persons right to bear arms. I don't think this bill has anything to do with race, I think it has to do with making sure that we the people are represented honestly.

Click to expand...

architect said:

The whole "show me your papers" aspect of this greatly concerns me. Why is confirming an address and affirming your identity believed to be insufficiently secure?

Besides, the folks who count the votes have more control over an election result than the ones who cast them. With much of the tabulation process no longer exposed to public view (e.g. the computational paths that exist in the voting machine's software), the only people who know what is happening are the ones who are making it happen.

This is "feel good" legislation that will have only a negative effect.

Click to expand...

Snazuolu said:

actually, the Constitution does grant voting rights. the 15th amendment says "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude"

Click to expand...

MilProGuy said:

If a person intends to vote once during a given election, then I see no problem with "instant checks", etc.,etc.

Those who wish to "vote early and vote often" are likely the ones who object to having to show ID to vote.:uhoh: Just sayin'.

Click to expand...

Tess said:

Despite what some politicians would have you think, voter ID laws are not to prevent illegals from voting, or felons from voting, etc.

It is designed to prevent the unscrupulous political campaign (is that redundant??) from pulling up to a crowd of people, saying "Hey, I'll drive you to the polls on behalf of my candidate. Need a cuppa joe? We have some snacks here. Help yourself." and thus getting votes (for a candidate) from people would would not otherwise have voted.

In different areas, different parties are likely to do such things. Just so happens AT THIS POINT IN TIME the Republicans believe the Democrats are doing it more.

Click to expand...

sparkman2 said:

The 15th Amendment prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude, as well as the 19th (sex) and the 26th (age). They do not grant one the right to vote. States are responsible for setting the electoral standards and policies for their state and if you are eligible to vote in that state, you are eligible to vote in a federal election.

The 2A specifically protects our right to keep and bear arms but yet it is the most controversial of all the Amendments to our Constitution. Imagine the uproar there would be if they wanted everyone going to church to register their religion with the state and allow the state to set rules on what they could preach and from what text they could preach from. Why should our fundamental right to defend ourselves be any different?

Click to expand...

Snazuolu said:

i think you need to reread the 15th amendment. it CLEARLY says the RIGHT to vote as well as the fact that NO state can make up their own rules concerning voting. "The RIGHT of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Click to expand...