Washburn aims to limit voter rights - letter by Tom Stonecipher

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

----------------------------

I previous dealt with this issue here, but I may end up repeating myself. I believe that Mr. Stonecipher is an attorney, which automatically caused my radar to beep. I don't know him, so I am not impugning his character, only questioning his reasoning.

--------------------------- 
At a time when five Supreme Court justices have gutted the Voting Rights Act, (I know the Left has used the term "gut," the reality is a bit more pedestrian. The decision simply removed certain states from federal oversight regarding their election practices. The NY Times noted Chief Justice Roberts' intent: "Chief Justice Roberts wrote that Congress remained free to try to impose federal oversight on states where voting rights were at risk, but must do so based on contemporary data." The article went on to say that the invalidated provision "determined which states must receive clearance from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington before they made minor changes to voting procedures, like moving a polling place, or major ones, like redrawing electoral districts." 

So these kinds of things are now left to the states in question, which in itself seems consistent with states possessing the authority to determine their own polling practices. Indeed, many believe that federal intrusion into this area is in itself a violation of the Constitution. 

The Times then acknowledged the pervasive racism of the past was no longer applicable: "In the 2004 election, the last before the law was reauthorized, the black registration rate in Mississippi was 76 percent, almost four percentage points higher than the white rate. In the 2012 election, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “African-American voter turnout exceeded white voter turnout in five of the six states originally covered by Section 5.”

So rather than the Act being "gutted," we must conclude that the Act did its job and was basically moot.) encouraging states like Texas and North Carolina, states with histories of the random, unpunished lynchings of black men, to enact restrictive voting regulations aimed only at keeping the poor and those of color from voting or registering to vote, let us take stock of what is happening, as Montanans and Americans.

Ask yourself this: Should elected officials be chosen on the vote of all American citizens, or should they be selected by ensuring that citizens who disagree with them don’t get to vote at all? The latter is undeniably the goal of laws which, for voting, call for state-issued photo IDs, current drivers’ licenses (who can’t afford cars? Oh yes, poor Americans), limit registration to vote within 30 days of the election — all when the evidence of voter fraud among all states is virtually non-existent. (This is the standard, almost verbatim Leftist take on the issue. But there is no evidence at all that proving who you are when you vote is an onerous burden, any more than proving who you are to take out a loan, buy tobacco, or get a fishing license is. And no one has suggested any of these ID requirements are discriminatory. 

Mr. Stonecipher rather indelicately lumps the ID requirements together, as if all of those IDs must be presented in order to vote. However, any state-approved ID will suffice. And the fact is, knowing who the person is when he/she votes is a perfectly reasonable, and also, constitutionally required activity. Only citizens are allowed to vote according to the Constitution, therefore the state has a compelling interest to ensure that people are who they say they are and vote only once.

We know that voter fraud is not "virtually non-existent." There are news stories everywhere about dead people voting, people voting multiple times, and people voting while pretending to be someone they are not. But the point really isn't relevant, anyway. Even if voter fraud is "virtually non-existent," the state still must ensure proper procedure. An since the procedure is evenly applied, it cannot be viewed as racist.)
In Montana, the man pushing this national strategy is our local representative, Ted Washburn. Washburrn has for years introduced bills to require state-issued photo IDs to vote, to limit and restrict voter registration before elections, and generally do whatever might help keep the poor, single moms, Native Americans, and our small population of American Hispanics from voting in elections, because they might not support Ted’s core political philosophy. All with no evidence of any voter fraud here. (Mr. Stonecipher imputes a motive to Mr. Washburn that he cannot possibly know. More to the point, there has been a large influx of of undocumented persons flowing into the US for many years. If there isn't a problem at present, there sure will be. People of all races, origins, or status must be able to prove they are eligible to vote.)

What does Washburn have in mind? Ask him when you see him out and about and weigh his answer for yourself. Only our governors’ vetoes have kept his efforts to disenfranchise Montana citizens from success. His fellow party members are ardent cheerleaders for his work. Are you?

Tom Stonecipher

Bozeman