Real letters unrun

While we often complain about the miserable letters the Oklahoman runs-- indeed that's the point of this blog-- we also try to contribute to improving the discourse by occasionally writing in on various topics. Unfortunately, our letters are, without exception, never run.


When commenting on another person's letter, our policy is not to blog about it, since the Oklahoman clearly states that they won't run letters "that have been published elsewhere or letters submitted to other publications"-- and while whatever we say in this blog would certainly be different in tone and detail from an actual letter to the editor, no doubt some similar phrasing and arguments would be used. Thus, to minimize the chance of an editor not running one of our letters over a technicality, we've held off commenting on a few of the papers more egregious letters of late.


Not like it's helped: our letters don't seem to run regardless. Anyhow...


Back in September, we got this gem from Mike Meador of Edmond, dredging up a zombie topic that right-wingers love to bring up in election season: voter ID laws. He writes:

Regarding "REAL ID law may complicate travel for Oklahoma driver’s license holders" (News, Sep. 14): I find it amusing that state Rep. Jerry McPeak, D-Warner, is accusing some of being hypocritical because they're against the federal law concerning enhanced driver's licenses and for the voter ID requirement. I won’t say I'm against enhanced identification practices for driver's licenses, as they're an almost universal form of identification. However, it seems hypocritical that those who clamor for more compliance to federal laws to enhance our main form of identification can conversely clamor that we don’t need to protect the sacred right of voting by ensuring the legality of the voter. 

For that matter, it seems ludicrous that the federal government, specifically Attorney General Eric Holder, fights for enhanced driver identification but fights against enhanced voter identification.

In a normal blog reply, I'd go for some usual suspects-- like, a) why can't they just link to the article being referenced? Is it that hard? And b) what's with the bolding there? It's like the editors tried extra hard to help this guy prove his point. Which, since it's a point the editors of course support, is entirely expected. And then c) the fact that this guy is an idiot who is ranting against a non-existent threat.


But instead of my normal blog reply, which would feature lots of sarcasm, insults, and harsh language, I'll instead just run my letter that the Oklahoman didn't see fit to run itself:

Mike Meador (Your Views, Sept. 21) finds hypocrisy where there is none. While the threat of terrorism on airlines remains real, voter fraud is non-existent. In his report titled "The Truth About Voter Fraud" (available on-line), Justin Levitt of NYU's Brennan Center for Justice studied various instances of voter irregularities to find that only the tiniest portion represented actual fraud. More frequently, such irregularities stem from honest mistakes-- e.g. a poll worker checking off the recently deceased Alan J. Mandel, instead of the actual voter, Alan J. Mandell. 

Indeed, voter fraud of the type the right clamors so much about is almost non-existent because it is horribly inefficient. Who is going to stand in line, and knowingly impersonate another person (at the risk of going to jail) all to cast one single vote?!? 

In the end, voter ID laws just serve to limit the voting opportunities of the poor and elderly-- people most likely to vote Democratic. And that seems to be the point, as revealed when Pennsylvania State Senate Majority Leader Mike Turzai bragged about it in a speech during the last presidential election. Listing his accomplishments, he said, "Voter ID, which is going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done." 

The reason the right clamors for voter ID laws is to limit Democratic votes to win elections. Mr. Meador claims that voting is sacred, but he really just means sacred for people who vote the way he does.

It's a straightforward reply to attempt to dispel a myth that is running rampant in some circles. You'd think a newspaper might want to educate its readers about issues, but the Oklahoman isn't a newspaper. It's a propaganda piece for the far right. Thus, while Mr Meador gets to rail against the false threat of voter fraud (and thus push a right-wing agenda point), common sense and basic reality (expressed in our letter) is shunned.


Pathetic.