Boy, oh, boy. Politics has been rearing its ugly head a lot these past few weeks. Having concerns, I decided to write letters to some of our area’s elected representatives.

To Rep. Cody Henson, N.C. House of Representatives, 113th District

Dear Rep. Henson,

I’m writing about your column, published in the Times-News last month, concerning photo IDs for voting.

You promoted photo IDs as “a proactive measure” to safeguard our election process. Proactive means trying to fix a problem that may exist in the future. If the problem currently existed, surely you would have cited references about massive voter fraud. I guess you didn’t because it isn’t there.

Per the Charlotte Observer, the state Board of Elections identified one ballot, out of about 4.8 million cast, where an in-place ID law might have affected the vote.

I’d like to draw your attention to an unprecedented news conference that happened on Aug. 2. Five leaders of the nation’s intelligence and security agencies — the FBI, Homeland Security, director of National Intelligence, the National Security adviser and the NSA director — jointly confirmed the “pervasive and real” dangerous Russian incursion into the electoral process of the entire country, focusing on 21 states. Is North Carolina one of those states? Have you tried to find out?

And yet, North Carolina has not availed itself of existing federal funds to protect our election system. I hope your next column is about your efforts to address the dangerous and CURRENT threat.

Sincerely, Dawn Kucera

P.S. — You also accused your colleagues “on the other side of the aisle” of invoking racism when they opposed photo IDs. Actually, that was the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. You dismissed the ruling by saying “liberal groups managed to convince the court” to overturn it. (The court noted that North Carolina’s 2013 voter ID laws targeted blacks with “surgical precision” and cited emails among GOP legislators as proof.) I find this assumed gullibility of an esteemed federal court on your part to be very troubling. But let me add this: the Supreme Court of the United States, in refusing to take the case, upheld the ruling. Do you think the Supreme Court is that gullible, too? Just asking.

• • •

To Rep. Chuck McGrady, N.C. House of Representatives, 117th District

Dear Rep. McGrady,

A Times-News article (July 20) said you agreed with eliminating emissions testing for cars in Western North Carolina. To be expected, I guess, but I was struck by your reasoning.

You said, “It’s a good thing to the extent that air quality in Western North Carolina has improved to the point that there’s no need for the continued emissions testing.”

I was reminded of the example cited by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, in her dissent when the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act (using the rationale that discrimination no longer existed). She said it was like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.

Questions for you: Maybe emissions testing (and the subsequent fixing of problems) is why our air quality improved? Could eliminating the tests be like throwing away the umbrella?

Sincerely, Dawn Kucera

• • •

To Representative Mark Meadows, North Carolina 11th District

Dear Rep. Meadows,

Lordy, Lordy, I hardly know where to start.

I do appreciate your weekly updates. However, I don’t appreciate it when you write stuff that shows you think we’re some kind of stupid out here.

Here are some examples. In your July 24 update, you perpetuated the proven-false narrative that the FISA warrant to wiretap Roger Stone was based on the notorious Steele dossier — when in fact, the basis was a tip from an Australian diplomat who heard George Papadopoulos talking in a London bar. Or when you said the political source of the dossier was not mentioned. Even Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., conceded that it was. I’m still waiting for that correction I asked you for.

Or how about your impeachment articles against Rod Rosenstein? Article V says, “Under Mr. Rosenstein’s supervision, Christopher Steele’s political opposition research was neither vetted before it was used in October 2016 ... .”

Here’s the thing — in October 2016, Rosenstein was the U.S. attorney in Maryland. He didn’t become the deputy attorney general until April 2017. See the problem there? Was this just sloppy staff work, or weren’t you serious about this and just going for the publicity?

But hey, sir, it’s not all bad news. With one vote, you truly went bipartisan — you were able to get everyone to agree on something. By voting for the tax cut bill, Democrats got mad because the cut largely helped rich folks, and Republicans got mad because it’s going to balloon the deficit. Good job!

Sincerely, Dawn Kucera

 

Times-News columnist Dawn Kucera is a Hendersonville resident. Reach her at dawnjkucera@gmail.com.