Gang of 5 (Cayton, Langley, McRoy, Booth and Klemm) vote against Voter Photo ID resolution | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Publisher's Note: This article originally appeared in the Beaufort Observer, with an editorial by Jim Bispo.

    At their Tuesday (7-5-11) meeting the Beaufort County Commission went on record against requiring voters to show a photo ID in order to vote. The "Gang of 5" (Cayton, Langley, McRoy, Booth and Klemm) voted against a resolution authored by Stan Deatherage and supported by Hood Richardson that would have petitioned the General Assembly to override the governor's veto of House Bill 351.

    The issue here is simple, even though Commissioners Booth and Klemm tried their best to obfuscate the issue. The issue is whether we are going to require a voter to prove that he/she is who they say they are. H 351 requires the state to furnish a voter a photo ID if they do not already have one. They just have to verify they are who they say they are.

    We found both Mr. Booth's and Mr. Klemm's arguments specious. If they are truly more concerned about a few who might not already have a photo ID, then it seems to us they should have voted for the resolution and then required the elections staff to assist any voter who requested help in gettin g a photo ID. And we had to note the irony that these gentlemen showed no such concern at the same meeting about whether if was too difficult for some "elderly" taxpayers to be able to pay their taxes.

    Jim Bispo, a member of our editorial team, followed H 351 as it worked its way to the governor this past legislative session so we asked Jim to share his thoughts on the issue after watching the video below.

    Here's the video of the commissioners' meeting:




    Here's Jim's commentary, and you may be interested to know that Jim falls into the category Mr. Klemm professed so much concern about:

    The governor vetoed the Photo ID bill, House Bill 351, which was co-sponsored by Rep. Bill Cook. The Beaufort County Commissioners, likewise do not support the legislation The bill was designed to help ensure the integrity of the voting process in North Carolina. Instead, the governor and a majority of the commissioners (does 5 to 2 ring a bell??) claim that it would in fact disenfranchise a lot of voters, most of them minority, old, and poor. According to the commissioners and the governor, with the veto, North Carolina's old, poor, and minorities will be assured the right to vote. I would suggest that without the veto they would all still be assured the right to vote.

    A lot of folks likened the cost of obtaining the newly required photo ID to a newly instituted poll tax. Early versions of the bill required each individual to obtain their own ID. Subsequent versions included a requirement that the photo IDs be provided at no charge to anyone not already having an acceptable photo ID. The version that Bev vetoed and the commissioners would not support had the photo IDs being provided at no cost (to anyone except the taxpayers). So much for instituting a "poll tax".

    One of the "reasons" I heard why this was not a good bill was that it was the creation of the RNC with the same bill having been proposed in quite a few states. I suppose if the RNC wants something, the rest of us should resist it. But wait. Has anyone ever heard of ACORN and all the tricks they played with voter registration pretty much all over the country?? If the problem was widespread, why shouldn't the solution be widespread?? We were well on the road to "vote early, vote often" types of elections in a lot of places. I am sure that nearly everyone - including at least some of our commissioners - would agree that we don't need that in North Carolina.

    Our voting registrars have repeatedly told us they had experienced virtually no cases of voter fraud. Those statements were seized on by the opponents of the bill as a reason not to go along with it. The registrars did not indicate how seriously they had been looking for fraud. But even if they had investigated carefully and found none - so what?? The fact is that NC didn't experience much illegal or morally repugnant behavior from our governors or other high elected officials either- at least not until it was unearthed. Who would have thought?? (There are even some allegations of impropriety related to the unreimbursed and unreported use of private aircraft hanging over the Purdue campaign.) It happens. So who's to say that it hasn't already happened in our voting process and simply hasn't been detected?? We hear reports of folks picking up "armloads" (surely an overstatement) of absentee ballots and taking them to a lot of folks who can neither read nor write, and "helping" them to vote. Is that what not being disenfranchised means?? When that kind of behavior is so easy to stop before it starts, why not go for the ounce of prevention?? Do we really want to wait for something untoward to happen in one of our elections before we do something about voter shenanigans??

    The desirability of showing a photo ID in order to vote is a no-brainer. So why are there so many of the elite against it?? Could it possibly be that they are still disposed to the ACORN voter-registration techniques?? The fact that no one has been caught lately fooling with the voters lists is neither here nor there. Must we wait until the absentee ballots "swing an election" to do something?? I certainly hear the arguments presented by commissioners Klemm and Booth. The question is, do they hear the arguments about helping ensure honesty and integrity in the voting process?? It certainly doesn't sound like it.

    Voters have not only a right but an obligation to vote. That means that we should not have to "spoonfeed" them to get them to the polls. Oh yes, a lot of old folks, poor, and minorities don't have a way to get to the registrars office to get their photo ID. Really??? So why can't the same folks who invariably seem to find the time and resources to take them to vote, pick them up and take them to the registrar's office to get their FREE voter ID if they do not already have one of the other approved forms of ID?? It seems as though the "naysayers" are more interested in leaving the door open for voter fraud than they are in ensuring that everyone entitled to vote actually gets an opportunity to vote. Of course, having the door slightly ajar could come in very handy - especially in a really close election. Hmmm... Requiring a photo ID won't guarantee completely and totally honest elections, but it will make it considerably more difficult to cheat. And isn't that what we all want??

    Click here for more on this issue from Beaufort County Now.