ArkTimes Cites Non-Existent Voter ID Requirement As Evidence That Republicans Hate Minorities

Max Brantley, angry as always.
Max Brantley, angry as always.

Liberals have long enjoyed tossing around the straw man argument that “voter ID laws are designed to suppress minorities” and “help elect Republicans.” (Thankfully, these scare tactics didn’t stop Arkansas from passing a strong voter ID law earlier this year.) You would think that a recent Wisconsin appellate court’s ruling would have torpedoed the false narrative that these laws create new requirements for voting (in fact, the laws simply require proof that voters meet existing requirements to vote). But Max Brantley has never been one to let facts get in the way of a good mudslinging!

Max’s latest conspiracy theory at the ArkTimes is that Republicans have now admitted that Pennsylvania’s voter ID law had the allegedly desired effect of suppressing Democratic turnout in 2012. Conveniently, Brantley fails to mention that Pennsylvania has a long history of fraud — in fact, both state and federal legislators have been convicted of vote fraud in recent history. Weirdly, Brantley glides over the fact that the Pennsylvania voter ID was not in effect during the 2012 election, per a court ruling. That destroys the argument that implementation of voter ID was responsible for a lower Democratic turnout in 2012.

You know what’s even more shocking? Brantley himself reported on the court ruling that delayed the voter ID law’s implementation on the day it happened, October 2, 2012.

So we can now say definitively that 1. The voter ID law was not in effect in 2012 and therefore could not have suppressed any Democratic votes and 2. Max Brantley should have remembered this, but for some reason it escaped his mind. Isn’t professional journalism fun?

In that October 2 post, Brantley said the court injunction was “good news for Democrats.” Imagine if I said the law would be “good for Republicans.” If current trends hold, Brantley would conspiratorially inform his readers that I want the law only to help Republicans by suppressing minority voters. Using that logic, I could easily infer then that Brantley thinks the delay of the voter ID law is good for Democrats because Democrats commit voter fraud — and that therefore, Brantley wants the law delayed so Democrats can steal more votes and try to win elections. But this attempt at telepathy by the ArkTimes should not be mimicked by people of good will. Perhaps we would all be better off if we could just speak about voter ID honestly: voter ID is good for everyone who opposes election fraud.

In his recent post, Brantley also insists that supporters of voter ID in Arkansas can’t cite a single example of voter fraud here in the state. Despite the fact that there are scores of examples from around the country, this claim is also untrue: in 2008, former state Senator Jack Crumbly was re-elected in a “fraudulent manner,” according to one of his Democratic colleagues. “The corruption and voter fraud was almost unbelievable,” John Paul Capps (D-Searcy) said. But these facts don’t fit Brantley’s narrative, so he chooses to ignore them.

Empirical evidence is hard to overcome, although Max Brantley often tries. States with voter ID laws have seen higher minority voting turnout and higher turnout overall. Voter ID laws instil confidence in voters who want to be assured that their vote is going to count. More confidence in the system means more voting. That’s good for everyone.

Please follow and like us:
error

2 thoughts on “ArkTimes Cites Non-Existent Voter ID Requirement As Evidence That Republicans Hate Minorities

  • July 23, 2013 at 4:45 pm
    Permalink

    Thus saith Max[Rodham Clinton] Brantley.

    Reply
  • July 30, 2013 at 1:16 pm
    Permalink

    Hi guys Its me, again. I love how you linked to a Dan Greenberg article, he has been very bipartisan on Voter ID. Ask Greenberg how much it cost it implement voter ID back in 2007 – MILLIONS,(in fact he filed a bill for that much). How much in 2012? 300,000? ask Greenberg how it got cheaper 4-5 years later?

    I hope to God that the Arkansas court follows Wisconsin Appeals court’s logic. In that decision, the Court said the voter ID was registration, there was no difference between the the two and In their Constitution the Wisconsin General Assembly as the explicit power to (under Article III Section 2; (2)) “provide for the registration of voters”. Now In Arkansas you will find no such language in the Constitution.. In fact our registration laws are codified but are in Amendment 51 of the Arkansas Constitution.

    So using basic logic, if you say that Voter Id laws are Registration, then you say that SB2 in fact amended Amendment 51, well then the law is unconstitutional, because well all know that you can’t Amend the Constitution with a legislative act? right?

    Also I thought that Jack Crumbly stuffed ballots, did this law do something to stop that? or to stop Absentee fraud?

    Lastly if you want to look at real stats: a Harvard paper here said that voter turnout went down 1.6% in states that have voter Id. http://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Voter-ID-and-Turnout.pdf

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *