“Prominent Democrats have increasingly softened their opposition to voter identification requirements in recent days,” informs The Washington Post, “signaling a new openness to measures that activists have long vilified as an insidious method of keeping minorities from the ballot box.”
Yesterday, when Republicans backed the idea, it was racist and supposedly so were they for supporting it. Not anymore. Now, Democrats favor Voter ID.
What changed?
Not racism. And certainly not racially exploitative demagoguery.
The catalyst may be a new Monmouth University poll showing fully 80 percent of Americans favor a photo ID requirement for voting, with support “at 62% among Democrats, 87% among independents, and 91% among Republicans.”
These progressive mutations take place as Senate Bill 1, the companion to H.R. 1, the so-called “For the People Act,” failed to break the GOP filibuster yesterday, blocked 50 votes to 50 votes along strictly partisan lines.
While Democrats scramble for a way out, some — Stacy Abrams, notably — suggest they have always been for voter ID.
Funny, the Democrats’ legislation would have effectively gutted the 35 state voter ID laws now on the books. “But HR-1 does not ‘ban’ voter identification laws,” lectures Newsweek’s fact-checker. “Instead, it offers a workaround” — that does not require showing an ID.
Just the sort of requirement Democrats now insist upon?
Hypocrisy notwithstanding, the real problem with Democrats dictating election policy from Washington is the rottenness of those policies, which include:
- Partisan capture of the Federal Election Commission by Democrats through 2027*
- Taxpayer financing of congressional campaigns
- Increased regulation of speech aimed at influencing congressmen (i.e. mobilizing citizens)
Congressional Democrats have plenty more bad policies where those came from.
And a legislative majority.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
* If you can’t pack the Supreme Court, packing the FEC is the next best thing.
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
2 replies on “Hypocrisy ID’d”
I always thought HR1 and S1 were unconstitutional, given the elections clause in the Constitution, but now I wonder. Does the second clause in the sentence below mean Congress has authority to change state law?
Article 1, Section 4:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
I’m so sorry I did not see your comment earlier. It is a good one. Congress, by my reading, DOES have the power to overturn state elections laws BUT only in regard to federal elections, that is for president or Congress.
Still, that limited power does not suggest it being a good thing to dictate those laws from DC, pouncing around policies as partisan control changes. And it in fact, as you note, seems to envision congressional action as a last resort, not as a regular feature.
An interesting side note is that we raised just that section of the Constitution when state-imposed congressional term limits were before the High Court, namely, that if Cong. Ray Thornton (D-Ark.) did not like the Arkansas law, the Congress had the power to address it and should not be seeking the Court’s action, when they had that power. Of course, incumbents in Congress knew the people would have revolted. But that is how a democratic and republican government, instead of a partisan government by the capitalized parties distorting those concepts, would have worked.