Some voter ID laws are more equal than others

As a result of such tactics the vote from the Valley rarely displayed the diversity of opinion associated with a democracy; some 15,000 votes were generally believed to be controlled in the Valley, and it was not unusual for them to go to a favored candidate by margins as large as ten to one.

Robert Caro: The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The Path to Power 1982 P722

I talked about the left’s rush to go after the Pennsylvania voter ID law in my last post,. It’s worth noting that as the left wails loudly over the Pennsylvania law New Hampshire another swing state approved a similar law back on June 28th.

In New Hampshire, different forms of identification are accepted, or residents have the option of signing an affidavit. The list will be shortened in 2013, and student ID cards and documents more than five years old will no longer be accepted.

This law took effect yesterday and for some reason it isn’t producing the same reaction among our friends on the left that the Pennsylvania law does.

Why?

If this is a question of voter disenfranchisement aren’t NH voters worth the same outcry as Pennsylvania? Do they not deserve the same angst as their larger brothers to the south?

The difference might be in the electoral vote count (NH has but 4) but perhaps NH’s Voter ID law doesn’t scare them as much because it doesn’t have large Democrat run cities that the Keystone State has. To wit:

the potential problem is much bigger, particularly in Philadelphia, where 186,830 registered voters – 18 percent of the city’s total registration – do not have PennDot ID.

Hmmm it would seem voters in cities have an ID problem. That’s strange to me. Why would a person in a city have less a need for an ID? In a city environment with a larger bureaucracy and less personal knowledge of the individual such ID would seem more necessary for life rather than less.

Even stranger this problem only seems to be evident among people who are inclined to vote for democrats. Note this editorial concerning the law

Second comes the GOP’s own admission — conveniently after the fact, of course — that their agenda was indeed political. The moment came last month at a GOP State Committee meeting, when House Republican Majority Leader Mike Turzai recounted Republicans’ legislative accomplishments for the year. Among them, Turzai announced to enthusiastic applause: “Voter ID — which is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania — done.”

Pennsylvania didn’t need the voter ID law. There was no credible evidence of voters impersonating other voters at the polls. There was one reason, and one reason only, to pass the new requirement, and it wasn’t the security of the ballot. It was the outcome of the election. We knew it all along. Now the GOP House leader has put it out there for everyone to see.

What our frenzied editorialist doesn’t do is answer a basic question, a question that any reasonable person might ask:

Why should producing an ID change the result of any election?

Why should the use of an item needed at any bank, to cash any paycheck or government check, to use a credit card, an item you are asked to produce at a hospital, at a supermarket or even to buy booze cause the results of an election to change? Do Democrats need these ID less that republicans?

What could possibility be going on that would cause the passage of a strong voter ID law backed by an Army of Davids equipped with iPhones and internet connections along with an energized Tea Party with volunteers willing and able to serve as poll watchers to strike such fear into the hearts of Democrat leaning Union Stewards and Machine Pols who in the past have managed to deliver their precincts to their party by overwhelming margins?

I suspect the people screaming the loudest know the answer and that’s why they are screaming.

———-
The DaTechGuy Fundraiser continues, our goal is $3000. Any help is appreciated.

For details click here for the progress check the thermometer to the right and to kick in hit DaTipJar”.