More Political Waste

          The liberal left, made up of the ACLU and the Democratic Party, have used the courts to "win" another "victory" for the poor and down trodden who just can't seem to get a photo identification card to vote.  I mean why should we expect an American citizen to get a photo ID card even if it would improve the integrity of the voting process?  A liberal judge has now said that the law is not constitutional and can't be enforced.  I wonder how much money could have been saved in court costs if these two groups would have just used their funds to make sure everyone who needed an ID received one.  Incidentally, the photo ID's are free.  But more money will now be spent on more court costs as the decision is appealed.
          As a veteran judge of elections let me describe what often happens when a person comes to vote.  First we need to ask them their name.  Often they mumble it or the clerks have trouble hearing and understanding what they say.  Often it must be repeated.  So I'm Barry Kauffman.  Now is that Coughman, Coffman, Koughman, Kauffman, Kaufman or maybe even Kauffmann.  After learning how the last name is spelled the clerk must then search through about 2,000 names to find mine.  Then the clerk must ask my first name once again.  Is it Barry, Barrie, Berry, Jr. or Sr.  When that is straightened out the clerk must ask if I am the one on Charlotte St. or Prince St.  We're finally getting closer.
          When the correct Barry Kauffman on Charlotte St. is located in the book I must sign my name.  Then the clerk must compare what I have scribbled to my reproduced signature placed in the book 20+ years ago.  If it hasn't changed too much and the clerk thinks it is close, I am approved and can now get a ballot. Now I am not exaggerating when I say so many signatures are scribbled and it is impossible to really compare them.  But that is the final test to establish that I am a valid, registered voter in the correct precinct.  And this is how we guard against improper voting and voter fraud in this state.
          It is so much easier and safer when the prospective voter hands the clerk a photo ID.  The clerk immediately sees the correct spelling and the address and can immediately look up the name.  The photo verifies that the person is who he says he is and the clerk can approve the voter within seconds.  Fast, efficient, and as secure as you can get.
          As clerks and judges we want such a system. It makes it tremendously easier for us. We can process a voter in a few seconds rather than minutes.  And in those elections where you process up to 1,500 voters, wasted minutes make a major difference in waiting time for the voters.  And they appreciate that.  And we don't have to depend upon matching signatures to approve the prospective voter.
          Now the ACLU and the Democrats argue that the law keeps poor folks from voting.  I find that interesting since I need a photo ID to see a doctor, to cash a check, to buy some medicines, to board a plane, to drive a car and many other activities.  And the state provides them free of charge to those who don't drive.  Maybe the Democrats could even transport folks to get their free photo ID, if they don't have transportation.  And, incidentally, if they can't get to the location to get their free ID, how are they going to get to the polls to vote.  Nobody seems to ask that question.
          I admit that I just don't understand the argument against the ID's.  It just makes too much sense to require one.  But, unfortunately, like so much in this country today, it has become all political and the Democrats are playing it all to their political advantage.  So sad.