On elections

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Indian_Voting_Rights.html

I have written before about assuming the world was in a permanent state...that the way things were when I was growing up was the way they should be. I grew up knowing people were people and hating them for being black or Asian or whatever was out of the question. Hating them for weighing 600 pounds but wearing a bikini, however, is perfectly acceptable. Okay, so I made that line up...but it has a certain level of truth anyway.
Seriously, I am fine with people being out of shape...I am not exactly rocked up. Never have been, never will be. but at least I have the common courtesy to cover it, you know?
Anyway, the way I was raised I assumed everyone who acted legally was treated equally. I never saw all the prejudices that led to the Civil War...or Civil Rights movement, either. Nor did I think we were still involved in the Indian Wars. Certainly those sorts of actions would not have been tolerated in our house. I will admit to thinking Alan was extra cool because he was Native American...but the thought of not hanging out with him for that never occurred to me or, to the best of my knowledge, anyone else I hung out with.
So imagine how sad I am when I read the referenced article.
They cite, for example, South Dakota's new voter identification law, which requires photo identification at the polls, a problem for many on the reservations who do not have IDs. The law permits those without identification to sign an affidavit, but opponents argue there is confusion about what is allowed.
Now, I know not all my readers will agree with what I am about to say, but stay with me here. This is a move identical to moves that have been made ever since voting became a meaningful political action to negate specific voting blocks. Not just in the U.S., either...watch the development of voting and you will see it has long been a way to eliminate "undesirables" from voting.
Our own history is rife with these issues...things such as the literacy tests that prevented the blacks from voting after the Civil War. Since it had been illegal for them to read, clearly they would not be able to pass the literacy test and hence were disenfranchised. Oh, it was LEGAL for the ex-slaves to vote...it was just impossible because they could not pass the test that every voter had to pass. Well...not EVERY voter. You see, in case someone did not get the point that this was a racial exclusion of a voting block, they introduced the "Grandfather Clause" (and yes, this is allegedly where the phrase came from) in which if your GRANDFATHER had voted you did not need to take a literacy test. Why Grandfather instead of father? Because before they figured out the blacks actually planned to take advantage of their new rights, some of those former slaves had the unmitigated gall to actually vote! Why, if you made it so those whose Fathers had voted, many blacks would have ACTUAL voting rights, not just Constitutional and we could not have that. So the Democrats popped in the Grandfather Clause. Suddenly the illiterate whites could vote but illeterate blacks could not. When some black forgot "his place" and learned to read they used other similar methods.
This continued for years with both Dems and Republicans coming up with various ideas to disenfranchise specific groups. I still to this day laugh when I hear the Democrats referred to as the party with the Civil Rights plank...they have long been far and away the worse abuser of these subterfuges, although there are few innocents in this story.
So how does the SD voter id law work into all this? Well, let's lay a little background. The Dakotas were stolen even quicker after the treaty was signed than most N.A. treaties were broken. Furthermore, it meant more to the Sioux...the Papa Sapas, what we call the Black Hills, were their Sacred, Holy lands...resentment ran higher there than almost anything else. Even the Pipestone Quarry was within the land.
Racism and hatred of the legitimate occupants is part and parcel of the story of South Dakota. South Dakota-ans have a long and tragic history of blatant racism towards the people they stold the land from. You know how bad those signs we remember from the 60s Civil Rights struggle were with one over a nice fountain "For Whites only" and one over the lower, unclean, nasty fountain "For coloreds" that offended us so much? How about the signs from all over S.D. "No Indians allowed". On their own reservations, no less!
Leonard Peltier is part of the lore and you don't have to do much research to see that is a black mark all around...FBI, fed government, and even the Sioux. AIM did a lot of work out of S.D. and in S.D., trying to get white murderers arrested...though not everything they did was pure.
In other words, seeing something racially motivated come out of South Dakota is neither new nor unexpected. It is, in fact, predictable. Now, why would I say this voter id thing is racial? I have come down in support of similar things in the past. So what makes this one different?
Anytime you see a statute or law emplaced that disproprotionately affects one easily identifiable group of people it is automatically suspicious. Sometimes these are beneficial (at least, theoretically) to the group being targeted...Affirmative Action comes to mind as an easy example. Think what you will of AA, it was specifically designed to impact an easily identifiable group of people. Identifiable by race. And yes, it was designed to help them...the effectiveness is strongly debated by many, but regardless of what you personally believe, don't lose sight of the fact that it was DESIGNED to improve the life of a particular set of people.
This law is the opposite. It is clearly designed to render a hardship to a select, easily identifiable group of people...the Native Americans who neither need not want picture identification. Who made the mistake, apparently, of voting in large enough numbers to make a difference. So we will simply make a law that "applies to law".
It reminds me of the concept of a "princeps" in ancient Roman thought processes...all men were equal, he was just the "first among equals", therefore more important...even though they were all equal. This law says "we are all equal, we all have the right to play, but you don't get too."
Now, I do believe there are voting reforms that are needed. Too many dead people are still voting, too many places have statistical anomalies that benefit one party or the other...there is plenty of voting fraud out there that does, indeed need rectified. But the way to do that is not disproportionately but effectively disenfranchising one historically disenfranchised group is not the way to do it.
And yes, I see the part about "they can sign" but I also see the part about "nobody knows what is allowed". Sometimes the end result is every bit as important as the actual letter of the law because it reveals the intent.