As the upcoming November election looms, we're gonna hear more about voter IDs and if they are really necessary. I am in the YAY group. Union thugs are in the NAY group.
Why are unions opposed? They insist that having to pull out a photo ID to vote will most certainly disenfranchise the poor and minorities. What does it mean to disenfranchise? From Webster's: to deprive of a franchise, of a legal right, or of some privilege or immunity; especially : to deprive of the right to vote.
So how exactly does showing an ID disenfranchise someone, especially the poor or minorities? If your answer is that having an ID implies a cost and possibly one that these folks can't swing (don't get me started on how most of our "poor" have cell phones and flat screens), take a look at this, by The Heritage Foundation:
"Indiana provides a free identification card to any resident who requests
one from the state’s Bureau of Motor Vehicles. Traveling to the BMV and
requesting one, therefore, is the extent of the restrictions on voting."
Do the union thugs care about this? Nah. They only care about how they can swing more votes their way, by hook or crook. Emphasis on the crook. Mark my words, as the election draws nearer, we're gonna be bombarded with their loud thuggy disapproval, daily.
While Union thugs believe, nay INSIST, that it's burdensome for voters to show an ID before they vote (about as burdensome as registering to vote, I guess, but not near as burdensome as signing up for a cell phone service), and holler and intimidate their way through the coming months protesting, I find it hypocritical that when the unions hold a vote, they INSIST on voter IDs.
Yep, they do. Go HERE and shake your head.
Mention either of these facts to them, the freebie IDs or their insistence that you show one in their elections, and they simply become unglued with rage. The truth hurts, mah babies.
Want to be better versed in the issue? Want to be able to annoy a union thug? Go HERE and read Heritage's work.