NO HARM, NO FOUL

Sometimes you are not sure the way that a certain issue should be addressed. It is not clear what the right answer is, so you have to make the best decision based upon the available information. You have to rely on other principles to make the right decision. You have to look at both sides of the issue. Usually, in a clear cut situation, you already know how you would decide the issue from the outset.

Something that causes real harm needs to be resisted. However, if it is something that causes an inconvenience, then it is simply a hassle to comply, but there is no harm. Harm can be avoided by compliance. This means that it may pass the test. I believe strongly in probable cause. This is a protection to the individual against the monopoly of law enforcement possessed by the government.

The government cannot deprive me of my freedom unless they have probable cause to suspect that I have committed a crime. They must also obtain a warrant if they want to search my possessions. These are safeguards for the individual. Without these protections, the government could search me on a whim and I would have to comply with no recourse. The Miranda rights are important rights and law enforcement has to respect them. The individual is helpless against arbitrary governmental power. We need protections.

The Supreme Court on Monday, April 28, 2008 decided 6-3 in favor of upholding an Indiana law requiring voters to produce photo identification before being allowed to vote. The law was passed to prevent voter fraud. Voter fraud will always be a small number. Most people that vote do not think about defrauding the system and even if there is voter fraud, it will generally be so small as to not affect any election.

The Indiana law and all of these photo ID laws are an over reaction. There is no way that every system will be perfect. Does fraud occur in elections? I am sure there is some, but once again its magnitude is minimal. We simply cannot prevent everything. This is what the law in Indiana is designed to do. If there is evidence that a fraud has occurred, then those responsible should be prosecuted for fraud. Voter fraud should be on a case by case basis.

The question is does the State possess the right to deny an individual the right to vote unless they have a photo ID? Once again, the number of those not possessing the required photo ID is a very small number. The number would be, in general, so small as to not affect any election. We are talking about the margins, not the majority. If someone intends to vote in an election and they know that there is a requirement for a photo ID, then they would put forth effort to get the ID.

What the Democratic party and the ACLU (who are in bed together) know is that those looking for a handout usually vote for them. They know that these people are lazy and will not get the required photo ID, if they do not have one. These people are not issue oriented, only hand out oriented. It is bad when people like this are the voting base you depend on. This tells us that there must be some other basis to determine who should be allowed to vote in elections.

The Associated Press article quotes Justice John Paul Stevens as saying, "We cannot conclude that the statute imposes ‘excessively burdensome requirements’ on any class of voters." This law applies equally to all voters. A voter is an individual, not a particular class. The Democrats and the ACLU claim that the Indiana law will discourage the elderly, poor and minorities from voting. Who are the elderly, poor, and minorities? They are individuals.

As Justice Steven has pointed out, the photo ID requirement is not excessively burdensome. This is my conclusion also. It is an inconvenience to those who do not possess a photo ID, but for the vast majority, all you have to do is show your driver’s license. This takes a few seconds and your identity can be verified. This law forbids the right to vote without a voter ID, but this is easy for most people to comply with. It is an inconvenience but not overly burdensome. In other words, no harm, no foul.

You would think that the Democrats and the ACLU would be for a fair election. Their opposition gives away too much of their position. Their real opposition is not the possible discouragement of a few marginal people, it is much deeper than this. I suspect that it has to do with the motivation of their voting base. These people need things as simple as possible for them to function. Once again, these people are not issue based but handout based.