The Democrats have been making desperate arguments against voter ID legislation, including claims that it will disenfranchise married women due to their name change. Naturally they’ve left out the part about Barack Obama launching his political career by using the name change of a married woman in his successful attempt to have all his opponents kicked off the ballot and run unopposed.

The SAVE Act, which has been passed by the House and is heavily supported by the public but is stalled in the Republican Senate, simply “requires individuals to provide documentary proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote, and requires photo identification to vote, in federal elections.” It does not establish a poll tax, a literacy test, nor pre-19th Amendment restrictions to disenfranchise women.

Yet New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer has repeatedly called it Jim Crow 2.0 because in his fevered all-for-the-party mind it “has nothing to do with protecting our elections and everything to do with federalizing voter suppression.” 

Democrats, who want to flood elections with illegal aliens because they will vote their way, have also whined that the law will prevent married women from voting because the names on their birth certificates don’t match their married names.

This shows how duplicitous they are: Obama exploited the name difference of at least one married woman to clear his path to the Illinois Senate.

David Freddoso exposed Obama’s nastiness years ago in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, in which he pointed out that the community organizer “won his first election in 1996 by throwing all of his opponents off the ballot on technicalities.”

One of the Obama “tactics for disqualifying them was to challenge signatures on his opponents’ petitions by married women who signed using the wrong name,” he posted Sunday, which happened to be International Women’s Day.

“Beginning on Jan. 2, 1996,” Freddoso writes in his 2008 Journal piece, Obama’s “campaigners began challenging thousands” of qualifying petition signatures that “the other candidates in the race had submitted in order to appear on the ballot. Thus would Mr. Obama win his state Senate seat, months before a single vote was cast.”

The petition challengers reported to Obama “nightly on their progress as they disqualified his opponents’ signatures on various technical grounds — all legitimate from the perspective of law.”

“In the end,” says Freddoso, “Obama disqualified all four opponents — including the incumbent state senator, Alice Palmer, and three minor candidates.”

So Obama began his noxious “public service” career using dirty Chicago Democratic machine politics, going so low as to even disenfranchise females. Today, his party, which is more unscrupulous than ever after having adopted his vile methods and taken on his odious personality, wants to pretend none of it ever happened and strains mightily to cast itself as the principled defender of female voters.

No wonder that only the murderous Islamist regime in Iran scored lower than the Democratic Party in the favorability rating in a recent NBC poll.

— Written by the I&I Editorial Board