Posted by Curt on 9 January, 2008 at 8:15 pm. 34 comments already!

The Democrats sure know how to pick them huh? A few months back it was the “poor” family who couldn’t afford health insurance as the poster family for SCHIP. They turned out to be a middle class family that was doing quite well with a new SUV and a remodeled kitchen.

Now to prove that forcing someone to show ID to vote is a hardship they trot out a elderly lady named Faye Buis-Ewing:

When poll workers wouldn’t accept her Florida license as a valid ID for voting, she was told she could cast a provisional vote, but she declined. Her birth certificate wasn’t acceptable because it didn¹t have her married – and therefore identifying – name on it, according to a brief filed with the Supreme Court by the Brennan Center.

Oh, the hardship. Nevermind the fact that you need to show ID to use a credit card, or buy a beer, or cigarettes. Now its a hardship for this lady.

Problem is she is a tax evading grandma who resides in two states:

According to Ewing and Ann Nucatola, public information director for the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Ewing surrendered her Indiana driver¹s license in 2000, when she moved to Florida and obtained her Florida license. Nucatola said that a driver must have a Florida address to obtain a Florida driver¹s license.

“And if they own property in two states they have to get a license that says ‘valid in Florida only,’” Nucatola said.

Ewing said Monday that her license is a “regular” one that she uses in both states. She renewed it in 2007 on a Punta Gorda, Fla. address.

At the Charlotte County, Fla. voter registration office, Sandy Wharton, vote qualifying office manager, said Ewing registered to vote in Charlotte County on Sept. 18, 2002, and signed an oath that she was a Florida resident and understood that falsifying the voter application was a third-degree felony punishable by prison and a fine up to $5,000. Wharton said her office checked Ewing’s Florida residency and qualified her on Oct. 2, 2002. On Oct. 4, 2002, they mailed her Florida voter card to her, to the West Lafayette, Ind. address that Ewing gave as a mailing address.

However, Ewing didn’t vote in Florida that year, nor has she ever voted in Charlotte County, Wharton said. But, just a month after receiving her Florida voter card, she did vote in the November 2002 elections in Tippecanoe County, Ind., according to Heather Maddox, co-director of elections and registration in Tippecanoe.

Ewing confirmed that she is registered in both states to vote, but at first said the Florida registration came automatically with her driver’s license. She repeatedly denied signing the oath on the Florida application. She also said Indiana mailed her an absentee ballot, but she didn’t use it or vote that year.

However, Heather Maddox, co-director of election registration in Tippecanoe County, said Ewing voted in Indiana in 2002, 2003 and 2004, before the Indiana ID law took effect in 2005.

When informed that the Florida voter office said she’d registered personally in 2002 for a Florida voter card, and that this newspaper had a copy of her application, Ewing said, “Well, why did I do that? I¹m confused. I can’t recall.” She reiterated that, even though she’s registered in two states, she only votes in Indiana, adding that she does have a car plated in Florida.

That doesn’t satisfy Florida officials.

“She can only be registered to vote in the place where she claims residency,² Wharton said. “You can’t be registered in two states. She has to claim one place or the other.”

Ordinarily when someone registers to vote in Florida, the state informs the election board where the applicant was previously registered. But according to Wharton, Ewing did not inform Florida that she was ever registered to vote anywhere else.

“She signed an oath saying she was a qualified elector and a legal resident of Florida,” Wharton said. “And the space where she was supposed to tell us where she was previously registered, she left blank.”

The Democrats are giving the excuse that she didn’t do this to impersonate someone and vote, which does not matter one iota. What matters is how easy it WOULD of been for someone who did want to do that if this voter ID law was not in effect.

And tell me how this law is that bad?

It makes provisions for people who are too indigent to pay for a photo ID, and allows people to file a religious objection to it. It gives people who don’t have an ID a chance to file a provisional vote, and essentially doesn’t deny anyone who really wants to vote the right to vote, as opponents claim, Rokita said.

But the Democrats think they’re gonna get some votes out of it, thats all that matters apparently. How dare we stop Mickey Mouse and Cinderella from voting!

I think this may be a good time to bring up this article which shows how easy it is for voter fraud to take place:

Maybe Joe Moschella thought he was playing it safe. The 59-year-old retired transit employee had mailed his absentee ballot too late, he thought, so on Election Day 2000, he trotted down to the polls and voted in person. The only problem was that his polling place is in Staten Island, where he lives, while the absentee ballot went to Florida, where he winters.

This August, Moschella’s name came up in a sweep of voter registration records by the New York Daily News, which found that he and 46,000 other New Yorkers were registered to vote in both Florida and New York. Moschella also had the bad luck to answer the phone when the News reporter, Russ Buettner, called. So, his name appeared in the paper’s Aug. 21 story revealing that in the 2000 election between 400 and 1,000 of these double-registrants voted in both states.

And how easy it is to fix it. Have them show ID!

UPDATE

Now this is sweet!

There are many ways to lose a Supreme Court case, and by the end of an argument that was before the court on Wednesday, the Democrats who were challenging Indiana’s voter-identification law appeared poised to lose theirs in a potentially sweeping way, with implications for many future election cases.

The justices’ questioning indicated that a majority did not accept the challengers’ basic argument — that voter-impersonation fraud is not a problem, so requiring voters to produce government-issued photo identification at the polls is an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote.

The tenor of the argument suggested, however, that rather than simply decide the case in favor of the state, a majority of five justices would go further and rule that the challenge to the statute, the strictest voter-identification law in the country, was improperly brought in the first place. Such a ruling could make it much more difficult to challenge any new state election regulations before they go into effect.

>