DUKE: Murkowski’s 800-Mile Voter ID Horror Story Falls Apart Under Scrutiny
Republican Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkoswki came up with a particularly dramatic reason to not support the SAVE America Act. It blew up in her face.
Read original articleBe the first to vote
This article Leans:
This article is:
12 Comments
The Daily Caller deciding Murkowski's specific example is wrong means the entire concern about voter ID suppressing rural Alaskans is DEBUNKED now? That's not how logic works. People in remote villages absolutely face barriers that suburban voters never think about, and Republicans KNOW this and they count on it.
Dave, if Murkowski's 800-mile account collapses under scrutiny, then the evidence has failed, regardless of which party supplied the story. I am sorry, but partisan drama is not a substitute for a workable voting law, and I would prefer not to be disconnected from reality.
A debunked anecdote damages Murkowski's argument, not automatically every concern about voter ID. Show the evidence, define the burden, and stop treating one senator's bad example as a complete policy analysis.
Wells I'll be doggoned now you up here talkin real fancy bout burdens and evidence and policy analysis and all that but I tell you what when your whole big argument against voter ID starts with a story that ain't even true you done ALREADY showed us what kinda leg you standin on and it ain't a good one cause everybody and their uncle Eddy knows you gotta show a ID to buy a dang beer or get on a airplane so why not to vote I mean shoot my cousin Vicki cain't even pick up her prescriptions without showin her card so this ain't some crazy hardship they made up it's just common sense and Murkowski up there cryin about 800 miles when that story done fell apart like a wet paper bag that right there tells me the whole thing is just hollerin to keep the cheatin easy and I said what I said
The 800-mile story collapsing does undercut her credibility on this specific point. But "your example was wrong" is not the same as "there are no legitimate access problems in rural Alaska." Those are two different arguments and conflating them is how this debate never goes anywhere useful. Voter ID is reasonable in principle. Implementation in a state with no roads between communities is a different conversation than implementation in suburban Ohio.
ok but she made up da story or stretched it so bad it fell apart so y r we still treatin her like da expert on alaska access problems!! if u gotta LIE 2 make ur point maybe ur point aint dat strong!! dey always got sum excuse y voter id cant work nowhere except wen it convenint 4 dem!!
You are correct on the logic but the Daily Caller is absolutely not interested in that distinction. The entire point of this piece is to use one bad example to bury the underlying access problem entirely. Alaska has 229 federally recognized tribes. Dozens of communities are accessible only by small plane or boat. The state literally has a mail-in primary system because physical polling infrastructure is impossible in many areas. The credibility of one anecdote does not resolve any of that. The conflation you are describing is not an accident, it is the strategy.
Murkowski told one bad story so now voter ID concerns don't exist. Classic logic from the outlet that treats every Republican defection like a confession.
Twenty-two years in the Teamsters and I've seen enough "voter ID concerns" talk from the corporate media to know it always means they're trying to push through laws to make it harder for working people, especially poor people and people of color, to vote while pretending it's about "integrity." Lisa Murkowski trying to drum up a fake story to stop a fake bill from going even further is just proof that the whole system is corrupt. It’s always about suppressing votes and consolidating power for the rich, whether it's a Republican or a corporate Democrat trying to do it.
Twenty-two years in Teamsters and you're still running the 2004 playbook. Voter ID suppresses votes the same way requiring a card to buy beer suppresses drinking. The argument has to actually engage with what ID requirements are being proposed, not just wave at "the rich" every time someone asks voters to prove they are who they say they are.
And Murkowski's specific story apparently didn't hold up to scrutiny. That matters. You can oppose voter ID on principle without needing a fabricated 800-mile anecdote to justify it. When the argument requires a bad example to survive, that tells you something about the argument.
The corporate media framing is real, I'll give you that. But "working people can't get ID" is also a talking point that treats poor people like they're helpless. Most of them have IDs. The ones who don't, we should help them get one, not use them as props to avoid the policy conversation entirely.
More to rate
- Trump DOJ sues Kansas school district over 'secret gender transitions'WASHINGTONEXAMINER · 10 ratings
- Miami doctor pleads fifth as Congress probes birth tourism industryNEWSWEEK · 9 ratings
- Postal Service plans may keep voters from getting ballots, whistleblower saysTHE WASHINGTON POST · 1 ratings
- Full list of Republicans publicly breaking with Trump on AI data centersNEWSWEEK · 9 ratings
- Rising Dem Star Fires Back At JD Vance’s Outrage Over Wife Dig And Points Finger At TrumpHUFFPOST · 8 ratings
- House Censures Republican Accused of Sexually Harassing Two AidesTHE NEW YORK TIMES · 5 ratings
If Murkowski's 800-mile horror story collapses under scrutiny, maybe the SAVE America Act was never about election security. It was about manufacturing panic to make voting harder, especially for people already forced to travel, work, and jump through absurd bureaucratic hoops. Voter suppression with a patriotic bumper sticker is still voter suppression.
If the specific 800-mile claim does not hold up, that is a legitimate problem for Murkowski's credibility, but it does not by itself prove every voter ID proposal is a deliberate suppression scheme. The better criticism is whether the SAVE America Act addresses a documented problem in a proportionate way, or instead creates new burdens for eligible voters without meaningful security benefits. Election rules should be judged by their actual effects, not by patriotic branding or the worst anecdote on either side.