The UN -affiliated Organization for Society and Cooperation in Europe (“OSCE”) has been invited to monitor the US Presidential election. The invitation was issued by the NAACP, the ACLU and other far left groups.
The avowed purpose is to prevent voter suppression and disenfranchisement of minorities and the poor. One of the primary targets of these far left groups is what they view to be the arbitrary and improper application of voter ID laws. I am all for voter equality and fair elections, but I think it is outrageous that the US has to be subjected to having its elections monitored by a foreign entity, particularly one whose members come from countries such as Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, which are not exactly known for their free and open elections. I was happy to see the Texas Attorney General speak out strongly against these observers.
The far left liberals’ request for monitoring by OSCE is a thinly veiled attempt to combat some states’ voter ID laws, which they view as a means of suppressing voting by minorities and the poor. Hopefully, OSCE will seek out any and all voting irregularities (such as Black Panther voter intimidation), but I am dubious about that. It is worth denoting that Georgia and Indiana have had voter ID laws in place for several years. During that time, there has been no evidence of voter supression. In fact, the turnout of African American and Hispanic voters in those states has risen more substantially, than that for the nation as a whole. Moreover, Mexico, which we Americans like to view as a backward nation, has required voters to present comprehensive identification since 2000. They require a photo ID, a signature and a thumbprint. The ID includes a picture with a hologram covering it, a magnetic strip and a serial number. Man, would the ACLU squawk about that! At the end of the day, it’s not about suppression of votes; it’s about suppression of fraud. The idea is to permit everyone to vote who is qualified to do so, but only once, and no dead people, felons, illegal aliens or other unqualifieds.
Conclusion and Prediction
To be sure, US Presidential elections have not been without controversy. For example, there was the “hanging chad” controversy in Florida in 2000, which cast doubt on the result of not only Florida but the entire election. To this day, many Democrats remain convinced that Mr. Gore won that election. But, news flash to the rest of the world: the US is a democracy with a constitution, which provides for an orderly resolution of voting controversies and irregulaties through various legal means, such as the individual states, the courts and the Congress. And it works just fine! Even though Mr. Gore thought he had won the 2000 election, he didn’t raise an army and take over the government, as might have been the case in some countries. Both he and the nation accepted the results and moved on.
In an election this close, it is likely that there will be controversial and challenged results in one or more states. If so, do we really want the UN involved in resolving it, in determining the next President of the United States?