08/20/2012 07:57 am ET Updated Oct 20, 2012

Republicans Have Taken the Hypocritic Oath in Respect to Voting Rights

It seems that Republicans have taken the Hypocritic Oath of Office. Unlike doctors, their motto seems to be: "Do Some Harm." They advocate less government, but impose more government when it meets their needs. They decry government interference in the economy and demand to know why President Obama hasn't done more. They condemn the mandate for health insurance and require doctors to warn abortion patients of the risk of suicide. They denounce judicial activism, but applaud an unprecedented decision allowing corporations to corrupt the democratic process. They oppose any efforts to restrict the right to bear arms, but have no hesitancy in impeding the right to vote. Apparently putting the vote in the hands of the wrong person doesn't pose the same danger as putting a gun in the hands of the wrong person. Only restricting the right to bear arms, but not the right to vote, violates the Constitution.

Yes, I know that we require photo IDs for virtually everything now, and facially it looks like a pretty reasonable idea to require it for voting -- that is if you want to close your eyes to the true motive for the legislation. All of these gun massacres and hundreds of thousands of deaths and wounding by shooting apparently do not justify any increased regulation of guns or gun ownership. On the other hand, two cases of voter fraud in Gulch City require instant relief -- like an antacid. The right to bear arms somehow trumps the right to vote. Only the former is untouchable.

I don't even understand how voter fraud occurs. When I used to vote in person, I had to sign my name in the record book in the same place that I had signed in previous years. If a person were committing fraud by voting for someone else, he would have to know that the person had not already voted and be able to forge his signature -- never having seen it before. And if anyone can now vote by absentee ballot, how does photo ID prevent fraud? I am certain that there are some people who vote who are not authorized to do so, but the numbers are miniscule based on every study that has been done. A fraudulent voter, although committing a crime, does not kill anyone. I am not suggesting more gun regulation, because I have given up as most of the country and its legislators seem to have done. I am suggesting that if gun rights are so sacrosanct, voting rights should be even more so.

What does and should a court do when it is faced with a facially reasonable requirement but hears evidence that its motive is partisan and discriminatory or has a disparate impact. Courts who have upheld that type of legislation may justifiably feel compelled to do so. But there isn't anyone in the country, including the proponents themselves, who doesn't concede that the purpose of this type of legislation is to diminish Democratic votes in key districts. When we use the democratic process to defeat the rights of others we cease to be a democracy. No professed claims of protecting the integrity of the process by this type of legislation can overcome its blatant corruption of it.