In a three-page, 1,668-word story, Politico does its best to advance the Democratic Party’s anti-voter ID case. The story, written by Emily Schultheis (@emilyrs on Twitter), is replete with quotes from Democrat officials and nods to groups that oppose voter ID. While airing accusations that Republicans favor voter ID laws to suppress the votes of various Democrat constituencies, even airing without challenge or context AG Eric Holder’s over-the-top claim that requiring voter ID amounts to a “poll tax,” Politico’s story includes just one quote from anyone who supports voter ID laws. Here is that quote.
“I just don’t think it’s too onerous to pass [these laws] — our vote is our most sacred expression of our desire for our country,” said Catherine Engelbrecht of True the Vote, a group that advocates for more voter ID legislation.
That’s it. That’s Politico’s idea of “balance.”
Not mentioned anywhere in the Politico story: About 70% of Americans across all ethnic backgrounds support voter ID. Also not mentioned: Former Democrat Rep. Artur Davis has come out in favor of voter ID, and specifically rebuts Holder’s “poll tax” claim. Why didn’t Politico reach out to Davis and ask him any questions about voter ID?
Also not mentioned: Indiana’s voter ID law is the model for many other state voter ID laws, and it has already been found constitutional. Also not mentioned: Voting rates among minorities went up after Indiana’s law was enacted.
Also not mentioned: If supporting voter ID is based on politics, then isn’t it reasonable to assume that opposing voter ID is also based on politics? Isn’t it fair to ask why Democrats and in particular the Obama campaign/administration so stridently oppose voter ID, even to the point of lying about voter ID’s consequences, particularly when Democrats consistently demand photo ID for constituents who want to meet with elected officeholders at town hall meetings? It’s fair to ask, but Politico doesn’t ask that question.