"Trying to Have His Cake and Eat it, too": Rep. Clyburn Latest To Get Dinged For Voter ID Claims
By: JONATHAN TURLEY
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., received the ignoble distinction of four Pinnochios for his claim that Democrats have never opposed voter ID laws. A couple weeks ago, various Democratic leaders pivoted on their long objections to voter ID laws as the "new Jim Crow" laws, including Stacey Abrams. The Post's Glenn Kessler wrote "On the face of it, it seems absurd. After all, Clyburn has long been a foe of voter ID laws passed in his own state."
In an interview with Fox News anchor Neil Cavuto on Tuesday, Clyburn was confronted about the flip flop when he announced support for Sen. Joe Manchin's, D-W.Va., proposed voter ID requirement in a national election bill. Polls show voters overwhelmingly support voter ID.
Clyburn responded:
"I don't know why you guys keep misrepresenting what I said. I have never said that you should not have voter ID. When I got my voter registration cards, I keep them in my wallet. And when I go to vote, I presented that every time. And I said to them, I am Jim Clyburn, this is my ID, and I want to vote. I have always had voter ID. And that's why the representative earlier who voted … no Democrat has never been against voter ID."
Kessler however said that Clyburn spoke out against South Carolina's 2013 photo ID law under which a voter can use a driver's license or obtain a voter registration card with a photo for free. It also allows South Carolinians to cast provisional ballots without a photo ID by signing an affidavit explaining why they were unable to get an identification card. Clyburn denounced the law and said that such ID laws were "poll taxes."
He has repeatedly called such laws as designed to suppress the vote of black voters.
Kessler awarded four Pinochios and added:
"Clyburn is trying to have his cake and eat it, too. He routinely decries 'voter ID' laws, but at the same time he insisted on Fox News that he has never opposed such laws — and that every Democrat has supported them. In reality, he appears to be against many types of voter ID laws — ones that require photos, or a fee for a photo or which favor one voting group over another.
In other words, he's playing word games. He supposedly is for voter identification but against most of the voter ID laws being adopted by states … You cannot claim one day that voter ID is a new kind of poll tax and then, on another day, say every Democrat is for voter ID."
Clyburn is not alone in this distinction. President Biden has also accumulated a collection of Pinocchios, including for his false statements about the Georgia voting law.
Such contradictions would not ordinarily draw much attention except that the statements were made to support claims that these laws are voter suppression vehicles or, as Biden has claimed, "Jim Crow on steroids."
Tags
Who is online
50 visitors
The proxy gets three and his sponsor gets four. Liars all.
I'll take Turley decrying liars seriously when I read his article about Trump leading the 'Bottomless Pinocchios' list with 56 entries were he repeated the same lie over 20 times.
Sure, but what about the substance of the article--that Democrats continue to lie about voter ID?
That comment you are responding to is an off topic whataboutism and that is all.
A favored tactic by those unable to refute arguments:
Deflect!
A politician got caught fibbing? I'm truly shocked ... are y'all becoming Canadian?
Oh, God, noooo.
There's already over 1,000,000 of y'all living up here already ... Alberta especially loves y'all, come on up and party!
Naw--I don't even like winter here, and I'll be damned if I am going to live where it snows regularly.
I do not understand what this 'problem' is. And what is "voter ID" anyway? I have a drivers' license, because I drive. Is that "voter id" across the country?
Let's clarify this point before I continue!
Yes.
And Democrats, including Clyburn, have been against it for years.
Now they are trying to pretend they weren't against it.
Now I understand the 'confusion.' In California we are so used to having ID that it is not a thing to 'break-down' over. As I listen to this 'sticking point' repeatedly cropping up across the country, it perplexes me. I do believe I understand what Mr. Clyburn is saying. Because I tend to agree (looking in at the problem remotely) that either we want more people to vote and use the franchise using any form of verification that describes them.
I don't know why people balk at ID. They just do. However, the question is stark: Is there any means to allow the 'faint at heart' absent ID card person access to the franchise?
Mr. Clyburn is arguing for that person to vote, nevertheless.
The access is there for all. Some personal fucking effort may be required at some point.
if the person wants to vote, get an ID!
They are free in almost every state if not all states that require them to vote.
California doesn't require id to vote.
So then what? Do you continue indefinitely to be at loggerheads over it? Back to Mr. Clyburn, he expressed he has license to vote. Thus, he is advocating for those who through some legal 'injury,' disability, or whatever when election time arrives. Maybe he is considering new voters and not the "old heads" problem?
Difficult for me to speak to as I too have license - but like Clyburn that's just me!
States will issue a voter ID for free.
Some effort may again be required on the part of the voter.
It isn't hard.
And as a Californian, I make a point of showing mine every time I vote which is of course every election.
The problem is that Clyburn and others are lying to you and you believe it.
It is well-documented that many Democrats are and have been opposed to voter ID.
Already insulting me? Why strike below the belt? Have you 'sounded' me out on this, before?
If the truth is insulting, my apologies.
In that case, let's be done before we get 'started.' Bye.
I have heard that tall tale before.
Not falling for it.
I see no reason why voter ID, if the only allowable ID's require some fee to acquire, couldn't be objected to on the basis of them being a poll tax while other States that have free ID's available have no objections. If the allowable photo ID's aren't dependent on parking tickets being paid, or moving violations and are free to every eligible voter in the State then i don't have any objection to a photo ID requirement. I do object though when States require a valid drivers license (which can be dependent on driving records and parking ticket records) or an ID that would cost a fee to obtain since that is a poll tax, requiring someone purchase something in order to cast their vote.
I believe that every state that requires voter id issues free voter id.
Can you name a state that doesn't?
What's interesting to me is this line of disagreement keeps surviving election cycle after election cycle. It is as the saying goes, "The definition of insanity is. . . . "
It survives because democrats have been against it for so long, even though now they are lying and trying to claim they were never against it.
" At least eight states issue free or discounted IDs to low-income or homeless residents and at least 10 states waive ID fees for seniors. Advocates in Pennsylvania are lobbying for fee waivers for the homeless."
ID is not necessarily the same thing as a voter ID.
Here's How Much It Costs to Vote in States With Voter ID Laws
Voter ID laws impose hidden costs on voters, driving down turnout—and can disproportionately affect African-American voters and those 23 or younger.
For some voters, it costs $58.50 to vote in an election. That's more than enough to keep voters away from polls, according to a new report.
Thirty-three states require all eligible voters to show ID at the polling station and, in doing so, add a hidden cost to voting: While casting a ballot is technically free, getting proper identification is not. Many voter-ID laws came about after Congress passed the Help America Vote Act in 2002, which was intended to address concerns of voter fraud and irregularity in the 2000 presidential election. While concerns about fraud are widespread, research shows that it occurs very rarely.
The cost of obtaining an ID affects voter participation, and can disproportionately drive down turnout among African-American voters and 18-to-23-year-olds.
The Government Accountability Office studied the effect that voter-ID laws have on turnout in the 17 states that require voters to show government-issued ID at the polls. Driver's licenses and state-issued IDs are the two most common forms of identification, and they don't run cheap. An inexpensive driver's license will set you back just under $15, but some states' cost almost $60.
Your spurious claim that " that every state that requires voter id issues free voter id" is total bullshit.
Well, SCOTUS has upheld voter ID, and many states that require it also give voter IDs for free.
If one wants to vote, it is fairly easy, register, show ID, vote.
Also, despite your little quip, I didn't say that ALL STATES give free ID.
Go back and reread what you missed or misinterpreted.
The vast majority of Americans have ID.
It is required to travel on a plane, to open a bank account, buy liquor or cigarettes., drive a car, rent a car, etc.
Here is a link you should read.
Voter identification laws by state - Ballotpedia
As you go through the list state by state, you will find that a certain number of states requiring strict voter ID provide them for free. Many states accept utility bills and bank statements or paycheck stubs.
And almost every single state requiring ID allows provisional ballots to be cast.
All the angst over voter ID is nothing but a bunch of malarkey!
I presume than, that you no longer believe that every state that requires voter ID issues free voter ID.
It's amazing how personal research can alter one's position, isn't it Tex?
I said that I believed it, looked it up, saw that not every single state requiring voter ID issues one for free.
But gee, you can always cast a provisional ballot!
Voter ID is favored by the majority of Americans and isn't a hardship that liberals try to make it out to be,.
[deleted]
I encourage you to predicate your comments with that practice more often or to at LEAST practice it more often once challenged.
[deleted]
Wow, as someone who claims to be sorry for those who can't stay on topic, how do you justify not even being able to stay in the right seed Tex?
Here's the thing, Dulay, I don't have to justify any actions I take to you.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Rates of identification-ownership are highest among White individuals,
while other ethnic groups disproportionately lack necessary photo ID.
Thirteen percent of Blacks, 10 percent of Hispanics, but only 5 percent
of Whites lack photographic identification.
• Lower-income individuals are less likely to have photo ID. Twelve
percent of adults living in a household with less than $25,000 annual
income lack photo ID, compared to just 2 percent in households with
over $150,000 annual income.
• Young adults are less likely to have photo ID: 15 percent of 17-20 year olds lack photo ID, and 11 percent of those ages 21-24 lack photo ID.
Republicans know that photo ID laws favor the white middle aged middle class. It's a simple fact. That is why, when there is simply zero evidence of any widespread voter fraud, they want to enact voter ID laws and other restrictions specifically targeting minority, poor and disabled voters who they know tend to vote Democrat. There is nothing secret in the Republican party's plan, the evidence is clear. Trying to deflect and distract to continue the childish denial of the facts is pointless.
Oh, whataboutism now.
Great defense Tex. /s
Sorry, but SCOTUS has ruled in favor if voter ID before and most likely will again and again.
Those without valid ID can show other forms to identify themselves in many states requiring voter ID. Things like bank statements, paycheck stubs, utility bills, etc.
Or they can just sign a paper testifying that they are who they say they are in some states requiring ID.
Just curious as to how they can register without proving who they are. Many states require it to even register to vote.
Imagine that--wanting to know who is voting and if they are eligible to vote!!
oh, the sheer horror of it all!
LMMFAO!
What exactly does whip mean? I am not familiar with the meaning of the term.
In the absence of a party floor leader, the whip often serves as acting floor leader. The Whips assist the leadership in managing the party’s legislative program on the floor of the House and provides information to party members about important legislative-related matters.
I kind of doubt the term will survive the politically correct progressive liberals.
Thank you.
Whip (politics)
A whip is an official of a political party whose task is to ensure party discipline in a legislature . This means ensuring that members of the party vote according to the party platform , rather than according to their own individual ideology or the will of their donors or constituents. Whips are the party's "enforcers". They try to ensure that their fellow political party legislators attend voting sessions and vote according to their party's official policy. Members who vote against party policy may "lose the whip", effectively expelling them from the party.
The term is taken from the "whipper-in" during a hunt, who tries to prevent hounds from wandering away from a hunting pack.
Additionally, the term "whip" may mean the voting instructions issued to legislators , [1] or the status of a certain legislator in their party's parliamentary grouping .
|\
This last paragraph (bolded) is how I often here the term used in the house and senate as in "whipping votes." That is, knowing how many votes are "aye" and "nay" solidly before a vote count is taken.
Also, there are two types of "whips" in the House and Senate:
1. Majority (party) Whip.
2. Minority (party) Whip.