About North Georgia's publisher Randy Golden contributes a look into life in north Georgia, the Web, or anything that's on his mind.
I have always watched political folks for dichotomies (two contradictory parts or opinions) and an interesting one has been flaring up in Georgia. It seems the Republican-controlled state legislature passed a bill that requires a photo ID for a person to vote. Now that sounds like a pretty good idea to me, although I think that in a few years the act of going to a polling place to vote will be history at least for those of us who choose to purchase internet access.
Now the Democrats don't really like the bill, mostly, I guess, because they didn't think of it. Well, a few years ago, they passed the so-called "motor voter" bill allowing folks to register to vote when they got their driving licenses. I am in full support of the motor voter legislation because the larger the group of voters, the more representative the politician is of the general public. The Democrats triumphed the bill across the state because it opened up the electoral process to so many people who couldn't get to the courthouse. In September, 2005, 150 out of 159 counties have year-round drivers license registration, many with multiple locations, including Fulton County. A random zip code search for Georgia driver license places in the Atlanta area turned up at least 3 within 10 miles of every zip code I entered.
Now it seems that the same Democrats who were extolling the greatness of registering to vote when you get your driver's license are complaining that there are too few places to get a picture ID and that "some people are intimidated" by the process. I guess these must be different people than they passed the motor-voter bill for.
I don't think for that the Democratic hierarchy really opposes the bill, its just that they are looking for issues in the upcoming gubernatorial election. Well, I would like to let them know an issue they could work on to help the Democrats regain control of the state house and senate and the governor's job: distance themselves from the leftists in today's national Democratic party. When Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy and New York Senator Hillary Clinton want to ask a nominee for the Supreme Court if they will uphold the prior decisions of the court, that is insane. The court, in the past, has ruled that slaves are property (Dred Scott; part of the causes of the Civil War), that imprisoning Japanese-Americans who had done no wrong was proper and that segregation was legal (Plessy v. Ferguson). I don't want a justice sitting on the bench who will leave Supreme Court rulings alone.