Today's Letters: Voter IDs are a sensible precaution
By LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Published January 16, 2008
Voter ID law a GOP ploy to win elections | Jan. 14, Cynthia Tucker column
Why would anyone object to having to have a photo ID in order to vote? You need one to drive, you need one to fly. What's the ruckus about? Cynthia Tucker's article frames this issue as a new Republican "scam." Please. Democrats never lose elections - they're always cheated or scammed, right?
Everyone is against voter fraud, or are they? It's absurd to think voter fraud doesn't exist. Photo IDs wouldn't help perpetuate but would rather help eliminate voter fraud. Is it surprising to see who's complaining?
Personally, I wish national voter IDs were issued by the Internal Revenue Service and given only to people who file tax returns - kind of like you can't vote for the directors of General Motors unless you are a shareholder.
Jeff Reckson, St. Petersburg
IDs available
Cynthia Tucker's op-ed about voter ID laws is disingenuous at best, and dishonest at worst. All of the voter ID laws allow for other forms of ID besides driver's licenses. Being able to prove your identity is now a fundamental requirement of our society, and her own example proves it. If Mary-Jo Criswell can get a bank card with a photo ID, then she and other people like her can surely get one of the government-sponsored IDs that are accepted in lieu of a driver's license.
To say it is "elitism" to expect everyone to obey the same rules and to be able to prove who they are is preposterous.
Mitchell McConnell, St. Petersburg
Voter suppression
I congratulate the St. Petersburg Times for publishing Cynthia Tucker's column on the GOP's true motivation in passing photo ID laws.
In many states where the GOP controls the legislature and the governorship, including our own state, the GOP has passed these burdensome photo ID laws to suppress the opposition vote so they can win elections.
While about 90 percent of voters have a photo ID with a signature, the other 10 percent do not because they are poor, elderly or disabled. These 10 percent should have the same right to vote as the 90 percent, but in Indiana and Florida they do not.
The GOP is corrupting the democratic process itself by passing these restrictive laws which in my opinion violate our Florida and U.S. constitutions.
The U.S. Supreme Court has an Indiana case before it that can end the GOP's thinly veiled attempt to steal elections. We will find out this spring whether the court will uphold the Constitution, or pay back the Republican presidents who appointed them. They can't do both.
Frank Lupo, St. Petersburg
A count meltdown and bully tactics Jan. 13, editorial
Get behind amendment to control state growth
There is no doubt that the future of the Hometown Democracy Amendment has been jeopardized by problems with the state's process for counting petitions as well as the "bully tactics" of amendment opponents.
Florida voters must ignore these distractions and do what it takes to put the amendment on the 2008 ballot.
We need Hometown Democracy because local governments too often fail to protect their communities from destructive growth that harms the quality of life. Too often, they change the comprehensive plans, which are meant to protect the character of their communities, to suit the wishes of developers. Hometown Democracy would give voters direct control over many growth decisions that affect the future of their cities and towns.
Those who are happy with endless miles of strip malls, congested roads and concrete high-rises crowding our waterfronts can ignore the Hometown Democracy Amendment. If you want something better for our great state, sign the petition to get this amendment on the ballot today. Time is running out.
Liz Drayer, Clearwater
An overlooked problem
It is almost scary to me that I have not heard a thing about the need for legal reform from any of our presidential hopefuls. We have "predatory attorneys" running all over the state of Florida begging for mostly uninformed people to sue over ridiculous things. Defendants in these suits are almost always innocent yet are forced to settle because it costs more to defend than settle. Studies show that 85 percent of Americans are fed up with this practice, yet nobody will tackle the issue.
If I were a presidential candidate, I think I would forget about the 15 percent and make the 85 percent happy by pushing to outlaw this form of legalized extortion.
Paul Sexton, Plant City
Consider their character
It is indisputably stupid, backward and prejudiced to refuse to vote for Barack Obama because he is black, or Hillary Clinton because she is a woman. Is it no less backward and prejudiced to vote for Obama because he is black or for Clinton because she is a woman?
The folly of judging people based upon their appearance goes both ways. Desire to see the first woman president or the first black president is just another form of prejudice (the holding of preformed opinions based on insufficient knowledge, irrational feelings or inaccurate stereotypes).
Votes should be cast for the candidate most likely to do a good job - regardless of appearance.
Steven Lipson, Valrico
Pat Oliphant's Clinton cartoon Jan. 14
An unseemly jab
I found Monday's editorial cartoon about Hillary Clinton by Pat Oliphant to be in extremely poor taste.
Perhaps he's the one with PMS.
David Duff, Pinellas Park
Sexist cartoons
You continue to run Pat Oliphant's obviously misogynist cartoons. Why? His coverage of candidate Hillary Clinton does not even pretend to deal with her political platform or issues. Instead, he chooses to grandstand his sexist hate of women. As political cartoons, they are a sham. "Sham" on you!
Sally Segal, Hudson
Letters responding to the editorial A twisted reading of the law Jan. 8
Where's the mettle?
I do not get it. Mike Huckabee's stand to delete the phrase "act of God" from an Arkansas legislative bill is a spit in the sea on the issue of religion in the public forum. Prayer in schools, prayer in public assemblies, display of the Ten Commandments in public places, and President Bush's use of faith-based initiatives in government affairs are examples of meaty issues for presidential contenders to address.
I would like to see the candidates, whether driven by religious beliefs or personal morality, to simply display their potential presidential mettle without using religion as an ad campaign gimmick to court voters.
Gerard Meyn, Dunnellon