Column for June 30, 2011

Governor Beverly Perdue plays hypocritical politics with no real logic sometimes. I have come to the conclusion that she is not looking out for the best interests of the citizens of North Carolina but is rather looking out for the interests of herself and those who may keep her in power. I realize that this is not exactly a newsflash, but though I disagree with Old Bev on a good number of things, I have been trying to give her the benefit of the doubt. There were a few things that she did that gave me a glimmer of hope that she may be better than I originally feared, but she has been choking off the hope I was holding.

When 75% of your electorate support something, you had better take notice. Three quarters of North Carolinians (so I have read) were fully in support of the idea of having to prove your identity when casting a ballot in the state. The last I checked, we were still a sovereign state (at least the last time I read the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution we were, anyway). As a free state, we can decide how we wish to run elections.

Governor Perdue has vetoed a bill requiring people to show official photo identification at the polls. She said, “North Carolinians who are eligible to vote have a constitutionally guaranteed right to cast their ballots, and no one should put up obstacles to citizens exercising that right...This bill, as written, will unnecessarily and unfairly disenfranchise many eligible and legitimate voters. The legislature should pass a less extreme bill that allows for other forms of identification, such as those permitted under federal law.”

You see, that is the problem. People who are eligible to vote should have to prove that they are eligible. I have to show a photo ID when I cash a check, use a credit card, purchase alcohol, apply for a passport, open a bank account, request government documents, get stopped by a police officer for speeding, apply for a job, or any host of different activities. Why should voting be any different?

The argument that we would unnecessarily and unfairly disenfranchise eligible and legitimate voters is a specious one and quite frankly, you can use that argument to fertilize your garden, if you know what I mean. I do not buy the idea for one minute that a legitimate voter would have any problem producing a valid photo ID, whether it is a passport, driver’s license, or a state issued ID card. The only possible reason to not want a photo ID requirement is that you actually support election fraud, non-citizens voting, and are hoping that people who have no business voting for your overly liberal ideals will cast multiple ballots for you under fictitious, fraudulent, multiple, illegitimate, or unverifiable names.

As to the argument that we should scale back any proposed law to meet federal law requirements, I again point to the fact that this is North Carolina, not the federal government. We set up our own laws and are not required to merely duplicate some other guidelines. Anybody who thinks that federal government regulation should trump our own autonomy has either lost touch with how our government should and can operate or is completely ignorant thereof.

The hypocritical part is that at the same time, Old Bev did sign into law a bunch of bills that make her appear to protect North Carolina residents. Bills signed include tougher DWI penalties, the creation of a task force on fraud perpetrated against the elderly (not that a task force actually does anything but have meetings), mental illness care provision, new building code requirements, and the like. She just does not want to protect us against financial crisis and election fraud.

I mentioned that she sometimes does things with which I agree and that occasionally give me a ray of hope. Gov. Perdue signed a bill that improves existing gun laws (not that I am a fan of gun laws, but these provisions are at least providing more freedoms) and establishes the castle doctrine for home defense. That is a huge positive in my opinion. She also signed “The Founding Principles Act” requiring the teaching of US history in high school, and the “Government Reduction Act” which is intended to reduce state government by abolishing certain state boards, commissions and committees.

The blatant contradiction and hypocrisy here is hard for me, since I see the good, the bad, and the ugly in the decisions taken by our governor. I recognize the good decisions and want to have hope. But I have also seen the stupidity in action and that sort of cancels out the hope I had.