In a great tie-in to my post from the other day, Progressives Using Courts to Protect Voter Fraud in Louisiana, The NAACP wants to United Nations to look into how state governments are supposedly colluding to disenfranchise “voters of color” in the coming 2012 elections.
The alleged disenfranchisement is coming in the form of new state laws enacted to combat voter fraud, such as requiring voters to have photo I.D.s, not letting felons vote and limitations on regulations for early voting periods.
The NAACP plans to bring it’s case to the U.N. Human Rights Council, a body that comprises stalwarts of anti-corruption and voter rights like Cuba, China and Mexico.
We know know what this is really about, of course. This so-called push to stop disenfranchisement is nothing more than an effort to disenfranchise voters who will vote for whomever ends up running against Barack Obama by having anti-Obama votes negated by fraudulent ballots. It’s been part of the Democratic playbook for years.
It’s even more than this, however. It’s a slap in the face of every law-abiding black person in this country. Not everyone is falling for this and some are seeing this for the back-handed racism that underlies this attempt to perpetuate voter fraud in next year’s election.
This recent caller to CSPAN’s Washington Journal has it exactly right:
Rhode Island State Sen. Harold Metts is the person that Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Fellow Hans Von Spakovsky is referring to in the clip. Metts, a progressive Democrat, was the principle sponsor in the Rhode Island Senate for the new law requiring voters to present photo I.D.s to be able to voter in the state.
This is from a letter Metts wrote to The Woonsocket Patch, his hometown newspaper, addressing critics of the bill.
I can understand the concern of those in states that have a Republican-controlled legislature. I am also well aware of the opposition that President Obama is facing. But this is not the Jim Crow south of the 1960s, and Rhode Island has been traditionally a majority Democratic state for many decades. For this reason, the passage of the R.I. law was seen as an anomaly on the national landscape. But it is important to remember that the R.I. law incorporates provisions from the Indiana photo I.D. law that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in 2008; and it includes a free state voter I.D. card for anyone who needs one. Furthermore, at the polls, if someone doesn’t have an I.D., they will be provided with a provisional ballot, and if the signature matches that of their registration card at the local board of canvassers, their vote will be counted.
You need an I.D. for just about everything today. When I applied for Social Security, I was told that checks are no longer mailed, and that I would have to go to a financial institution to set up an account for direct deposit. The bank required my I.D. (driver’s license). When released from the ACI, former prisoners are given an I.D. My formerly homeless cousin told me how the shelter he stayed at helped him get an I.D. so that he could get a free bus pass and participate in the social service network of programs.
Historically, when Black people know the rules of the game they follow them to the letter and participate in the process. I take exception to those who give credence to stereotypes about our alleged inability or limited intelligence to participate in the democratic process. Moreover, as a candidate, I will make certain that those supporting me have a voter I.D., or know about the provisional ballot.
As you can see, the Rhode Island bill, like bills passed in Indiana and other places, has provisions to provide photo I.D.s for those who don’t have them at tax-payer expense. This isn’t about trying to disenfranchise poor or minority voters. It’s about getting Obama re-elected and those who support him know that cheating is modus operandi in electing Democrats.
The true irony is all of this is that groups like the NAACP have once again insulted black Americans, a groups they purportedly represent, by putting forth the notion that they aren’t resourceful enough to meet minimal requirements for voting, such as getting a photo I.D.
How insulting. Indeed, how racist.