Free Markets, Free People

Busting the “myth” of "no voter fraud"

One of the primary requirements for any democracy is to safeguard the integrity of its voting system.  If the people believe that it is subject to compromised in any way, shape or form, they’re likely to lose confidence in the system.  And that will eventually erode the legitimacy of any government that is formed under such a system.

One way to help insure that integrity is to make voters identify themselves before they can cast their ballot with a form of identification that everyone agrees upon and does the job of validating their identity.  Most agree that a picture ID issued by the state or federal government fulfills that role.  That’s because the such IDs usually aren’t issued until the entity issuing it can certify that the individual it is issuing it too is both a citizen and legal resident of the area.

Critics of such attempts at ensuring the integrity of the system have always claimed that A) voter fraud was a myth and B) such voter ID requirement place an undue burden on minorities.  Interestingly, the critics usually come from the party to which minority votes mean the most.

The Heritage Foundation today produced a nice little fact filled primer on why “A” above is not a myth and why “B” is, in fact, the real myth.

First “A”:

The fraud denialists also must have missed the recent news coverage of the double voters in North Carolina and the fraudster in Tunica County, Miss. — a member of the NAACP’s local executive committee — who was sentenced in April to five years in prison for voting in the names of ten voters, including four who were deceased.

And the story of the former deputy chief of staff for Washington mayor Vincent Gray, who was forced to resign after news broke that she had voted illegally in the District of Columbia even though she was a Maryland resident. Perhaps they would like a copy of an order from a federal immigration court in Florida on a Cuban immigrant who came to the U.S. in April 2004 and promptly registered and voted in the November election.

There is no question that voter fraud has and does exist.  None.  And the Mississippi example is exactly what can happen when no requirement for identification is demanded at the poll.  You simply go from polling place to polling place with a new name and request a ballot under that name (voter lists are pretty easy to come by, figuring out who is still on the list but dead doesn’t require a rocket scientist, etc.).  Even the Supreme Court members point to it not as a myth but as a fact:

Stevens wrote in a 6-3 majority opinion upholding an Indiana voter ID law: "That flagrant examples of [voter] fraud…have been documented throughout this Nation’s history by respected historians and journalists…demonstrate[s] that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election."

John Paul Stevens would hardly be described as a conservative justice, yet he knew that voter fraud is and always has been a problem and voter IDs are a reasonable solution.  So that “myth” seems to be adequately put to death.

How about “B”?  Does such a requirement place an “undue burden” on minorities?  Does it place an undue burden on anyone?

Not really:

[T]he number of people who don’t already have a photo ID is incredibly small. An American University survey in Maryland, Indiana, and Mississippi found that less than one-half of 1 percent of registered voters lacked a government-issued ID, and a 2006 survey of more than 36,000 voters found that only "23 people in the entire sample–less than one-tenth of one percent of reported voters" were unable to vote because of an ID requirement. What about those who don’t have photo IDs? Von Spakovsky notes that "every state that has passed a voter ID law has also ensured that the very small percentage of individuals who do not have a photo ID can easily obtain one for free if they cannot afford one."

If 99.5% of the voting population already has, in its possession, the required from of identification, then the “undue burden” has no foundation in fact. None. 

A recent Rasmussen poll found that 70% of likely US voters favored such measures to ensure the integrity of the voting system.  Given the facts and figures above, their desire seems reasonable measure to accomplish that goal.  The the two myths of the critics, on the other hand, have no validity or credence.   One can only surmise, given these facts, that anyone who clings to those myths has an ulterior motive that has nothing to do with the system’s integrity.  See DoJ for an example.

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

87 Responses to Busting the “myth” of "no voter fraud"

  • Interesting that I could find only one study that showed almost everyone has valid identification. Every study I have looked showed between 3% and 25% without valid ID, and does anyone even remotely doubt that minorities are by far more likely not to have ID than white people?

    My objection to this whole push is that there is political benefit to the types of policies that are being pursued, but no one appears to be pursuing policies to reduce voter fraud that do not provide political benefit. It would be quite simple to cross reference the Social Security Death Index against voter rolls, and by the way, where is the ID requirement for absentee ballots?

    If voter fraud reduction were the real goal, then people would be pursuing fraud prevention that did not disenfranchise any eligible voters.

    Show me where in the Constitution that a picture ID is required in order to be eligible to vote?

    • @CaptinSarcastic “Show me where in the Constitution that a picture ID is required in order to be eligible to vote?

      If you don’t think preventing voter fraud is the real goal, what IS the real goal?
      I don’t think of myself as particularly prejudiced against creed, color or national origin, I don’t see a problem with asking people who are voting to prove they are who they say they are.
      The business of not having valid ID is generally addressed by these laws, and usually provides for ‘the poor’ to get free identifications from a recognized authority.
      Assume for the moment the ‘poor’ are getting support from the government, for which they generally had to provide ID, no?
      Why is it you’re against it?

      Pursuing policies to reduct voter fraud that does not provide political benefit? I have to ask, what does that mean? I don’t follow. Voting is political, one side clearly believes it benefits from not having just anyone vote, the other side clearly believes it does.

      Unless you’re really convinced it’s intention is purely racist.

      • @looker I don’t think for a moment this is about racial prejudice, but I firmly believe it is about affiliation prejudice, and there is a correlation between minorities and part affiliation. Quite simply, if you could eliminate all black voters, you would be eliminating a 90% democratic block. Consider the Indiana ID law that originally required valid ID, but was later changed to allow for expired ID, so as not to disenfranchise elderly people who no longer drive, and therefore let their driver’s licenses expire. Consider the Georgia law which required that people pay for an ID and often had to travel long distances to acquire such an ID. This law was thrown out for it’s resemblance to a poll tax.
        One side believes that fewer legally eligible voters will vote with these policies in place and the other side agrees. The fraud element is in my opinion just a pretext.
        Most serious voter fraud cases involve absentee ballots, and the ID requirement does not even touch absentee ballots. A signature is good enough on absentee ballots, but not at the polls. We would have to outlaw absentee ballots in order for the ID policies to be anything other than the attempt to suppress eligible voters that it is.

    • @CaptinSarcastic Every study I have looked showed between 3% and 25% without valid ID, and does anyone even remotely doubt that minorities are by far more likely not to have ID than white people

      >>>> Eff them in that case. I ask YOU to explain to me why a minority can’t get an ID?

      • @The Shark They can, but let me ask you why we can’t have a literacy test or poll tax that a minority must pass or pay?

        • @CaptinSarcastic because not being able to read won’t allow them to vote multiple times?

          Oooops…you sorta forgot that part didn’t you sport?

        • @CaptinSarcastic

          The bad news is that if we had a literacy test now, probably 50% of people under 24 would fail it, regardless of race, creed, or ethnicity!

        • @CaptinSarcastic literacy test or poll tax that a minority must pass or pay?”
          how is that the same as proving you’re you? It’s not.
          And even though you’re claiming it’s for the poor, you keep trotting the word minority in there. Does that mean whites in Texas are now protected? We’re a minority according to ‘the studies’.

        • @CaptinSarcastic And speaking of literacy, we have a representative sitting in Congress today who thinks islands can capsize if you put too much weight on one side.

          Perhaps the literacy test should be for the people running for office.

    • @CaptinSarcastic I think you could make an argument that an illegal alien has difficulty obtaining an ID. Other than that there should be no issue gaining an ID. There are state IDs, Passports, Drivers Licenses. You need a valid state ID for countless things. The real issue however is that there isn’t a fully required ID. You only need a Passport when traveling to another country. You only need a Drivers License when driving. You only need a state ID if you don’t have a drivers license and would like to purchase cigarettes or alcohol.

      • @Above Ground Pools I don’t the question is whether it is an issue or not, it is simply a matter of fact. The vast majority of non-minorities in this country have a reason to have an ID beyond voting, driving, travelling, etc. Many more in the minority community simply don’t need an ID so they don’t get one. If a person registers to vote, and provides whatever documentation is required to properly register, there is simply no reason to add obstacles to voting. Fraud prevention is a scam, were it not, the GOP would be pushing to eliminate absentee ballots, the most unmanageable voting method we have.

        • @CaptinSarcastic holy god dude, paternalism mixed with the bigotry of low expectations. Minorities don’t have the same needs for ID as whitey? Lolllllllll thats a new one.

        • @The Shark It is more a reflection of being poor than being a minority, it’s just that poverty is over-represented in the minority community. People that don’t have cars don’t need driver’s licenses. Did you really not think of that? Do you really think this a “new one”? I assure, GOP strategists have been aware of it for a long, long time, going back to before my college days in the Young Republicans when suppressing minority votes was a topic of electoral strategy.

          How do you win elections?

          You either get more of your people to show up or less of theirs.

        • @CaptinSarcastic Absentee voting could be just as fraud proof if it was administered correctly.

          Also, your bit about registering properly does not eliminate fraud potential. Without an ID I could vote for someone else and I could do this multiple times across polling places. It’s complete BS to say it’s an undue burden to provide a photo ID. If a state doesn’t provide a way to get one – free – for non-drivers, they should. If you’re too damn lazy to go get it, no vote for you. People complain about low civic involvement yet we don’t insist they get off their lazy butts and get a simple ID?

        • @CaptinSarcastic How do you win elections?

          You either get more of your people to show up or less of theirs.

          >>> Or you cheat by having your “people” vote multiple times.

          You forgot that one sport.

          As for “It is more a reflection of being poor than being a minority, it’s just that poverty is over-represented in the minority community. People that don’t have cars don’t need driver’s licenses” >>>> Minorities don’t go to the bank? Need ID there. No bank account, no credit? Ok, how about the pawn shop? Oh yeah, they require ID also. Slice it anyway you want, there’s ZERO excuse for them to not have an ID. End of discussion.

          I’d also ask if my right to a fair and untainted election means anything, but I know from your answer that it doesn’t.

        • @The Shark @CaptinSarcastic

          No your rights don’t count. There’s some new term going around
          “anarchic tyranny” which means the government lets some groups get away with anything, see illegals in California or Occupy, and yet other groups of citizens face stiffer and harsher laws.

        • @CaptinSarcastic So it’s perfectly reasonably to insist the poor who want to drive get an ID, but the poor who want to vote don’t? Where is the outcry over the unfair burden of getting the ID for driving? Hell, they have to take a test to drive – is that fair to the poor?

        • @CaptinSarcastic Dude, Washtington DC demanded people show an ID to get their 3 free sandbags to protect their house during the big hurricane last year.
          That way people who didn’t live in DC and weren’t entitled to get their free 3 sandbags (look! I built a pedestal to stand on when the water reaches 1 foot!) couldn’t defraud the district.

          But to vote? nah.

          So I park myself in front of your house when the next mail comes, and present myself as you when the postman drops off checks in your mail box, and he doesn’t ask me to show him some ID, you won’t be too upset will you? Or if I walk into your bank with your account number and clean out your savings and at no point in time the teller doesn’t ask me to prove I’m you via valid ID, you won’t get upset?

          But to set the course of national policy, to make decisions that affect my taxes, my children, my home, my country, I’m supposed to let people just waltz in, perhaps to multiple locations, and cast ballots to elect officials and pass laws?

        • @looker @CaptinSarcastic I see that Capt.Stupid is holding forth here again. I’ve not seen so much unsupportable nonsense since Erp’s last marathon.

        • @grimshaw Is driving a right?

        • @CaptinSarcastic @grimshaw No.

        • @looker @grimshaw Ugh, the format… I was responding to the comment that complained about having to go through the trouble of getting a driver’s license for the purpose of driving (relative to voting). Nevermind, the moment is lost, lol

  • Nobody has ever said there is no voter fraud. Rather, voter fraud is at historic lows, and there is no evidence that ID laws or anything like that is needed. At first I saw these laws as potentially OK. But when I talked to colleagues who study American Politics, they pointed out that: a) studies make it very clear that such laws would starkly reduce minority and poor voting (making it likely a violation of the Voting Rights act); b) have no impact in reducing fraud which is already at historic lows; and c) the laws are designed to ask for particular types of ID that often are hardest for the groups the GOP doesn’t want to vote to obtain. To insiders it’s no secret — it’s bloody obvious — that the reason the GOP wants to implement those laws is to suppress voter turnout among groups less likely to vote Republican in order to increase their chances of winning. The claim that it’s about voter fraud is laughable. By working to suppress voter turnout of groups often discriminated against in the past the GOP is setting themselves up for a very bad, even disastrous bit of public relations.

    At least the New Hampshire Speaker of the House last year was honest in admitting he wanted college students not to vote because they were “too liberal.”

    The GOP is damaging itself without a lot of Democratic help. It took a disastrous turn in 2007 when it rejected Bush and McCain’s immigration law — a law that would giving the GOP a chance at major inroads in the Hispanic population. Instead, those voters will go for Obama and the Democrats – and the GOP policy gained them no support (and sooner or later an immigration law like that will be passed anyway). It was the most self-destructive choice either political party has made for a long time (one could argue the Iraq war is up there, but there was uncertainty on that — the immigration issue was bizarrely stupid). Then the tea party over reach and fizzle, the weird refusal to pass a payroll tax break extension (which they caved on, making Obama look strong) and now this? Add the fact that they can’t seem to rally around Romney because a few ideologues think he’s not “conservative enough?” It’s like collective group think. How many more gifts will the GOP hand the President?

    • @scotterb But you’re fine with letting people without voting rights vote. Let’s just make voting done by internet and the honor system then.

      • @Harun @scotterb
        Why even register? Just let anyone wlatz into a polling place and cast a vote. So what if the person who just voted walked out the door, got back into line and voted again, using a different name. What could go wrong???

      • @Harun @scotterb Your buds on the faculty don’t…obviously…represent the American people, who disagree with them on each of your stupid assertions.

        Heh.

    • @scotterb How do your good Collectivist buds lurking in the halls feel about Obama’s totalitarian urge, reflected in his spate of recess appointments, there, Erp…???

      • @Ragspierre @scotterb I am more concerned about the power granted in the Defense Appropriations bill. Recess appointments just reflect how broken our political system is. When a guy has the approval of a bi-partisan majority of state AG’s but can’t get a Presidential appointment through because of a MINORITY of GOP Senators, recess appointments are what happens. Obama should present the Senate with two options, one that he will ask him them to approve (reasonable bi-partisan option), and another he will appoint in recess without approval (partisan). The minority party in the Senate (because this does happen on both sides of the aisle) need to give more deference to the President on these appointments.

    • @scotterb Erp needs some new fallacies. These old ones are getting thread-bare.

      Appeal to authority: CHECK
      Appeal to popularity: CHECK
      Red Herring: CHECK
      Then we get to deflection…etc.

  • You all know when this sort of requirement will suddenly be accepted? When the GOP starts making use of the same cheating tactics and scale that the Dems use now. Suddenly ID will become quite important at election time.

  • You all know when this sort of requirement will suddenly be accepted? When the GOP starts making use of the same cheating tactics and scale that the Dems use now. Suddenly ID will become quite important at election time.

  • Most Americans are honest, but there are many now who have been to universities and/or homeless shelters who have been morally debauched. There will, therefore, be as much cheating at the polls as can be gotten away wiith. Though it will probably involve fewer people cheating more. Anecdotally, a friend of mine voting in NYC watched as the clown in front of him voted three times, until my friend raised objections to the poll workers who were acting as though nothing was happening. Then the clown gave my friend a dirty look and headed off for the rest of his day’s work. The poll workers continued to act as though nothing had happened. So poll workers are key, but ID cards will only do so much. You can work around them. I’m sure that serious consultants have been called in to suggest all of the ways in which voter fraud can proceed, and that their clients have then tried many of them.

    • And with the ascension of the Chicago gangster-socialists to control of the Democratic Party a “fair election” is one that they win. On a moral level, I’d rate them lower than Mussolini. Look at the creeps that come around here on their behalf, for instance.

  • A picture ID is required to apply for and to continue receiving food stamps. But now the left wants to push the lie that a voter ID would disenfranchise some eligible voters. Those guys living under the bridges for the most part really don’t give a crap about voting unless they are given a few dollars or a bottle of wine by ACORN organizers.

    I would also say if a picture ID is too expensive to purchase every four or five years that person has more to worry about than not having an ID. In fact that person most likely is receiving food stamps and has already provided proof of identity.

    I will also say there is an agenda at play here and it is NOT suppression of votes by Republicans.

    • @Johnny Jones But the poor! the, uh, minorities that mostly make up the poor, the uh, uh, poor guys we ask to vote in places they aren’t eligible to vote in multiple times, they’ll be disenfranchised!

      They’ve bought into the bullshit, we’re wasting our time. Funny how the perception by voters and representatives in state after state are heading towards voting ID laws. Clearly it has to be stopped before that crazy idea hits places like Illinois and the honest old saw of “vote early vote often” becomes just a sad reflection of a longed for past.

  • Let’s stop screwing around – let’s look at real life instances where ID is required and then discuss poor people and the elderly not being able to identify themselves at a polling place.

    Prescription drugs
    Over the freaking counter – Cold and flu remedies
    Alcohol purchase (Beer, Wine, Spirits)
    Cigarette purchase
    Flat fix it (yeah, really – must be 18)
    Spray paint
    Check cashing or paying
    Bank withdrawal
    Driver’s license or Driver’s license renewal (requires birth certificate, social security card, military id, passport)
    Credit card/Debit card use
    Bars (must be 18 or older to enter)
    Community Pools
    Package pick up
    Post office parcel pick up
    Safe Deposit box use/rental
    Certified Mail delivery
    DC free sandbag hand out (snark)

    Add to the list – shouldn’t be poor/rich oriented, just instances day to day where your ID is required.

    • @looker Entry into most Federal buildings
      Air travel

      • @Ragspierre Funny that everyone can manage to get out to vote on election day, even though they’re poor and elderly, but they can’t manage to get an ID to do it.

  • Requiring valid ID at voting stations? What a strange concept… you should be like the rest of the Western world and let anyone vote anytime, anywhere and any number of times. Oh wait, no, every Western country has some sort of similar rules and if you show up without acceptable ID you don’t vote, minority or not.

    • @DocD “some sort of acceptable ID” is quite different than ONLY a state issued picture ID. College student ID’s should be valid, but most of these new laws exlude everything except state issued ID’s. I am not opposed to efforts to verify one’s identity, but when it is limited to one method of ID, it strikes me as suppression not prevention. Why not let voters choose a PIN number when they register and use that PIN as their verification (in lieu of ID)? The thing is that there are many ways to verify a person’s identity, but the particular method being pursued is the one that prevents the most legal votes. That is why I consider this to be suppression.

      • @CaptinSarcastic @DocD Yeah, but you’re an idiot.

        ITEM: student IDs as voting bona fides…which we know illegal alien…or LEGAL alien…students all have.

        See? Moronic.

        • @Ragspierre @DocD Wow, you want to throw some nonsense attack at me so bad you don’t even slow down to think about what you are saying. People should be proving their citizenship when they register to vote, not at the voting booth. If they are registered, the only question that could remain is if the person is in fact the same person who is listed on the voter rolls. Or are you suggesting that people prove their citizenship, again, when they get the to polls?

      • @CaptinSarcastic @DocD More MORONIC…

        PINs could easily be solicited from people who are too lazy to vote by members of certain “community organizing” outfits, who then rotate from polling place to polling place.

        • @Ragspierre @DocD Sure, if someone is willing to commit multiple felonies, but they could have fake ID’s as well. A simple answer answer would pin and ink, you get one vote, and yes, if someone wanted to risk 5 years in jail, they could use someone else’s pin. Sometimes the best way to stop a crime from happening is to make it a crime and provide a stiff penalty, which in the case of voter fraud, we do. That is why most voter fraud is done through absentee ballots, there are often no witnesses. It is a rare stupid person who would risk 5 years in jail to cast a few votes.

        • @CaptinSarcastic @DocD What ID, dope? They have the PIN. You can’t even manage consistent stupid.

        • @Ragspierre @DocD Wow, I jsut have to spell everything out for you, eh? Yes, people could use other people’s PIN’s if there were a PIN policy, but under an ID policy, people could use fake ID’s. There is always a way, and none of the solutions are going to eliminate fraud, but I support any solutions that reduce fraud without suppressing legal votes, and there are many ways to do that, but the GOp only wants the options that DO suppress votes, because this whole push is ALL about suppressing votes. I think you even know this, otherwise I don’t think you would be so opposed to every solution that doesn’t suppress votes.

        • @CaptinSarcastic @DocD There is no support that a voter ID program “suppresses votes”…except you chanting it does.

          By a BROAD, BIPARTISAN majority, Americans support these laws.

          Americans are not racists.

          Nobody desires vote suppression, and your whole argument is sanctimonious bullshit. What’s more, you know it.

  • I see many posts here listing all the things that require ID of some sort, and yet, a significant number of registered voters still do not possess ID. I know to middle class Americans it justs seems impossible, but clearly it isn’t. Virtually every situation listed where ID is required (except driving) allows for alternate ID. For example, if you apply for foodstamps, you can do it without ID, you can even get expedited food stamps without an ID and the agency will just call a friend to verify who you are. An estimated 28 million people do not have a bank account. College students often establish residency in the state of their college, but survive quite well with the student ID, usually photo ID’s, but these are not eligible for voting, I wonder why?

    • @CaptinSarcastic And in many cases, there are documentated cases of rampant fraud in food stamps and other programs.

      Again, you consistently make the argument these people can’t take the time to get an ID, but they CAN take the time to vote.

  • In any case, it seems the main objection to not requiring a specific state issued photo ID is that a person could theoretically vote under multiple names without said ID. Even though there is no such requirement for absentee ballots and the GOP is not asking for this (again, I wonder why?). But regardless, this is a simple hurdle to overcome and it is done all over the world, simple thumbstamps as you enter the poll. Mark voters’ fingers with indelible ink. It wears off after a while, it’s widely used throughout the world, and there’s no mistaking it for anything else. A person could have multiple ID’s, but they can’t have multiple left thumbs. If this were not about voter suppression, this is what the GOP would be proposing, but it’s not, because voter fraud suppression is not the goal here.

    • @CaptinSarcastic The GOP is not proposing these reforms. They are bipartisan. You know, like your pose at being non-partisan.

      Name a European nation where they dye voter’s thumbs.

      List the nations “all over the world” who use this method.

      • @Ragspierre @CaptinSarcastic You are not allowed to dye thumbs in Europe, it would cover up the government enforced barcode tattoo.

        • @DocD @CaptinSarcastic Yeah, I hear that’s why they are going to the implanted transponder…

          The guy is just another Erp. Just as full of sh!t, and just as insistent on running any stupid thing into the ground to be “right”.

  • Not to mention that I am just appalled at the authoritarian streak going through an ostensibly (kind of) libertarian forum. America is different than Europe, who issues ID’s to every person and the people don’t, and can’t, function in society without it. That’s just not the American way, at least it didn’t used to be.
    Think about why you oppose “Real ID” and then try and figure out why you don’t oppose this political strategery?

    • @CaptinSarcastic More AMAZING stupid. Simply gob-smacking stupid. How are a national ID card and a simple photo ID different, putz? Good grief.

    • @CaptinSarcastic

      Your claims of “suppression” and “intimidation” have been shown to be completely untrue.

      How many illegal votes are OK in your opinion? Is there a limit?

      • @Johnny Jones How many are okay in your opinion? Remember, most voter fraud occurs through absentee ballots when the only assurance the voter is who they say they are is a signature promising it is so. So how many?

        • @CaptinSarcastic @Johnny CaptStupid I think has self-identified as a partisan hack playing the “above the fray” BS game.

          In other words, another Erp, but without the condescension of a PhD.

          That makes two too many…

        • @CaptinSarcastic @Johnny ha ha ha you do realize that is exactly the argument for requiring ID?

        • @CaptinSarcastic @Johnny

          You are the one arguring against any voter ID. So answer the question how many illegal votes are OK in order you lefties to feel good that voter repression has been averted?

        • @CaptinSarcastic @Johnny

          When absentee ballots are sent in they should be accompanied with picture ID. That wouldn’t be hard.

        • @DocD @Johnny Of course, that is my point. If the push for the ID policy were actually about stopping fraud, there would be focus on absentee ballots, but instead is focused on the areas where fraud is clumsy and risky and there is no effort to address absentee ballots. Someone in this forum suggested sending photo ID in with absentee ballots, which is kind of funny, considering you would not be able to look at the person to confirm identity.

        • @CaptinSarcastic @DocD @Johnny So you want picture ID for absentee ballots but not actual people who walk up. Strange.

          How do you propose to eliminate illegal immigrants from registering and voting? And don’t say they don’t because they do and it’s documented.

        • @CaptinSarcastic @DocD @Johnny If they required photo ID for absentee ballots, you’d be claiming that since it wasn’t necessary for voting at a polling station that this was an unfair burden.
          You have you eye on “the plan,” but have it backwards. First photo ID at polling stations, then photo ID to get an absentee ballot.

        • @CaptinSarcastic @Johnny So, you’re telling me that there is voter fraud occurring through absentee ballots. So let’s start with that as a given …

    • @CaptinSarcastic You are as bad as the pointless prof making stuff up about Europe. ID is not issued to everybody in Europe. I can vote without ID if I am known to the returning officer at the polling station or if someone vouches for my identity, but it is easier to show a driver’s license or passport. I can authenticate myself using bank issued ID if I don’t want to use a driver’s license, or other acceptable methods not linked to the state. It is just a trade-off between how much drama one wants in getting some form of ID from some source… just like in America.

      • @DocD I probably overstated Europe’s ID requirements and should not generalize, since Europe is not one country. Spain, Luxembourg and Belgium, for example, have compulory ID requirements beginning with teenagers, and in Spain and Lux, it is illegal not to have it on your person at all times.

  • “Former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama created quite a stir when he wrote a column recently in The Montgomery Advertiser saying that he has changed his mind and now thinks that voter ID requirements are a good thing.” http://www.npr.org/2011/11/02/141932317/in-voter-id-debate-a-few-go-against-party-lines

    For the record: During the last presidential election former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis was Obama’s campaign chairman in Alabama.

  • The Threat of Non-Citizen Voting

    In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to 3 percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens.[1] While that may not seem like many, just 3 percent of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presidential vote margin in Florida in 2000. Indeed, the Census Bureau estimates that there are over a million illegal aliens in Florida,[2] and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has prosecuted more non-citizen voting cases in Florida than in any other state.[3]

    ,,,
    ,,,

    The evidence is indisputable that aliens, both legal and illegal, are registering and voting in federal, state, and local elections. Following a mayor’s race in Compton, California, for example, aliens testified under oath in court that they voted in the election.[8] In that case, a candidate who was elected to the city council was permanently disqualified from holding public office in California for soliciting non-citizens to register and vote.[9] The fact that non-citizens registered and voted in the election would never have been discovered except for the fact that it was a very close election and the incumbent mayor, who lost by less than 300 votes, contested it.[10]

    ,,,

    ,,,

    The Oversight Committee pointed out the elephant in the room: “[I]f there is a significant number of ‘documented aliens,’ aliens in INS records, on the Orange County voter registration rolls, how many illegal or undocumented aliens may be registered to vote in Orange County?”[13] There is a strong possibility that, with only about 200 votes determining the winner,[14] enough undetected aliens registered and voted to change the outcome of the election. This is particularly true since the California Secretary of State complained that the INS refused his request to check the entire Orange County voter registration file, and no complete check of all of the individuals who voted in the congressional race was ever made.[15]
    ,,

    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/07/the-threat-of-non-citizen-voting

    ,,

    Bruce has previously had a blog post about this:

    ,,
    New Haven Mayor Wants Undocumented to Vote

    http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2011/12/14/new-haven-mayor-wants-undocumented-to-vote/

    • @Johnny Jones Registering to vote requires (or can with no objection from me) establishing citizenship status, it has nothing to do with ID at the polls.

  • Damn – and some people are worried about State laws mandating ID for voting –
    Nary a word about the DHS mandated “Real ID” system.

    http://www.dhs.gov/files/gc_1172765386179.shtm

    and you’re worried about ID for voting in your local polling place?
    How’s that going to work out for the poor and elderly when they go to apply for Federal benefits?

    The ID is required for “official purposes” not limited to – boarding an airplane, or….entering a Federal Building – like, uh, a Social Security office, or a Post Office (or the Social Security office in Leesburg Florida where the DHS showed up with automatic weapons and armor to make sure the Jihadi’s weren’t going to try and sneak in and apply for Social Security today).

    “Ihre Paperie Bitte” for anything Federal

    but voting?
    nah, we trust ya, come on in.
    Excuse me Sir, you can’t cast a second ballot without going back to the end of the line like everyone else!

    • @looker I mentioned REAL ID earlier (I know, with this format time is relative). I oppose REAL ID for the reasons you cite and others. It’s an authoritarian policy and I see no good coming from it. (though there are people who will say it is no problem as long as you have not done anything and you play by the rules). But REAL ID is not DHS policy, it is law that was passed in 2005 by the GOP Congress, Senate, and signed by GW Bush. Senate Democrats have been trying to repeal or replace this monster, but Republicans won’t do it.

  • More – sweet
    CHICAGO (CBS) – A new state law requires those who buy drain cleaners and other caustic substances to provide photo identification and sign a log.

    But how will the poor and elderly keep their drains clean???!!!!! Don’t they have a right to have clean drains?????

    Oh, the humanity!

    • @looker Is purchasing drain cleaner a Constitutional right? You see the difference right, you can put all kinds of hoops and barriers to many things, but not fundamental rights. We consider habeus corpus to be a fundamental right (at least we used to), so let’s say that the government decided that all citizens were entitled to habeus corpus, as long as they had valid photo ID? This would sure help get them illegals off the streets, but the point about rights is how much you can restrict them in efforts to weed out people, but rather how you can weed out bad people without restricting rights. Beyond the politics of the left wanting as many people legal as possible, and the politics of the right wanting as few minorities voting as possible, the core principles do exist and that, not the politics, should inform a person’s opinion on this subject.

      • @CaptinSarcastic Yes, but my point here Cap is, to protect our ‘rights’ we refuse to allow an ID requirement, but to protect us from every other conceivable misuse we require ID.

        So, your argument is we shouldn’t protect our rights, and any attempt to do so should be labeled subliminally racist?

        “Beyond the politics of the left wanting as many people legal as possible, and the politics of the right wanting as few minorities voting as possible,”
        This is posturing on your part. You have deliberately framed the desires of the right as evil, and the desires of the left as glorious and noble.
        And THAT my friend is typical behavior on the left, if you don’;t mind my saying so.
        Why don’t you try backing your truck up and seeing what you just ran over. I’ll give you a hint in case you no longer recognize it for the tire tread marks.

        HONEST, if admittedly snarky, discussion.

        • @looker It’s not the framing, it’s the fact. I have said, repeatedly, that this is not about race, it is about party affiliation. Look at protecting the protected right first and foremost, then look at policing the protected right. Policy to prevent fraud that doesn’t impede any citizen’s Constitutional right to vote = good, policy ostensibly to prevent fraud that DOES impeded any citizen’s Constitutional right to vote = bad.
          At the very least, every single reasonable avenue of fraud prevention that would not impede any citizen’s right to vote should be put in place FIRST before policies that impede a voter’s right are even considered.
          How can anyone even pretend that the Voter ID policy is remotely related to fraud when all you have to so is look at the simple fact that there is disagreement about it. Instead, the right says they want to reduce fraud, and this ID thing is the only thing they can come up with, and the left says no, that idea doesn’t just stop fraudulent votes, it stops legitimate votes, and then of course the response from the right is the right is that the left just wants illegal as many illegal votes as possible, and of course the left comes back and says that the right just wants as few legal votes as possible (from the kind of people that might have ID’s).
          A good policy would reduce fraud without impeding legitimate votes, and all of them have been dismissed out of hand, in my opinion, because they don’t have the political effect desired.

      • @CaptinSarcastic @looker More stupid.

        You have a Constitutional right to lots of things. Never a license. You have habeus corpus as part of due process…under several conditions. Every right under the Constitution is conditioned by limits.

        I know this is both news to you and inconvenient to your BS argument. Still…

      • @CaptinSarcastic I agree with ID requirements, in case you didn’t notice, I don;t much appreciate being labeled a racist because of that.

        • @looker poor people don’t have ID’s, poor people are over-represented in the minority population, the minority population are over-represented in the democratic party. A political strategist (a Machiavellian one, to be sure, but there is not shortage of those) can be completely colorblind and not have a racist bone in their body, and still see the political advantage of the ID policy. So while I may be accusing the architects of these policies of disenfranchising people for political gain, I do not for a moment believe it is based on any racial prejudice.

        • @CaptinSarcastic Again, we’re at the point where you’re saying something, or in fact my saying it, does not make it so.

          IF and in most cases precisely because of your objection most states with the requirement are offering an alternate form of ID to a driver’s license to ‘poor’ and ‘elderly’. That’s probably two fold as -again- you don’t seem concerned that the DHS law requires people to have those to access their Federal facilities (yes, another RIGHT, they don’t have the RIGHT to access Federal buildings without an acceptable ID, but you’re pretending that’s in a different universe because it’s damned well inconvenient to the argument, but I digress).
          Alternate forms of ID are offered, people WANT to vote, according to you, yet they aren’t expected to get the documentation TO vote, they are only expected to show up to vote.
          I submit that if they can be rounded up to vote on election day, they can take the time to be rounded up to go register and be identified prior to election day.
          It’s not like the election is a pop quiz and suddenly they find themselves wanting to vote and cannot. IF alternate forms of ID are offered (and they invariably ARE) and they fail to take the time to GET that form, (after all, they DID have to register….) then they have chosen to give up their franchise. We’re supposed to participate in government, not lay on our backsides and except the voting booth to come to our doors so we don’t have to miss Jeopardy or Jersey Shore.

          I’m being disenfranchised every time a person who isn’t eligible to vote GETS to vote.

        • @looker I think the comparison of access to a federal building as a right is barely above purchasing drain cleaner, and in no way comes close to the level of the fundamental right to vote. Ineligible votes cancel EACH other out first. Take a quarter of the average of the various studies on voters without ID, I hope you will agree this is a conservative estimate. That number would be around 9%. If we enacted these various laws across the country, the portion of that 9% who wished to vote but couldn’t would probably be well below the national voter turnout average, so let’s say about 33% of the 9%, or 3%. Now over time, I am sure that eventually everyone that wanted to vote would get the appropriate ID, but certainly not immediately, say conservatively two election cycles. Do you think that disenfranchising 3% of legal, eligible voters is a worthwhile tradeoff for possibly eliminating the tiny fraction of fraud that occurs at the actual polls? My take is this, if you want to require specific state ID for all voters, fine, do it in the proper order. Spend an election cycle or two getting free ID to everyone who needs it. It should be done with an eye to protecting a person’s right to vote in supremacy to preventing fraud. We don’t convict 10 innocent men to insure that we don’t let a guilty man free, our societal norm is inclined to free 10 guilty man to assure we do not convict a innocent man. The rights are more important than preventing abuse of those rights, to a point.

  • The basis for the opposition is just typical projection. Twice this century, Democrats have thrown out every military absentee ballot they could get their hands on (while claiming to ‘count every vote’), simply because they knew which way those votes tended to go. It’s their automatic assumption that the Republicans must be doing the same thing.

    If the Democrats actually thought cost was an issue, federally subsidising the cost of the average state ID for 15% of the voters they got in 2008 would be about $100M, or about 1/20,000 of what is added to the federal debt every year.

    The idea that ID requirements should be opposed by people that beleive in liberty completely forgets that the founders tied liberty to responsibility.

    Meanwhile, the idea that a few bucks and the time to go get an ID is too onerous a requirement for poor minorities is being blown away by an urban black Democrat. Washington, DC’s most successful public school requires all students to apply to colleges; so the chairman of the city council wants all students in the city to do the same. This is just as time-consuming and almost always more expensive than getting an ID.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/all-dc-students-would-pursue-higher-education-under-council-chiefs-proposal/2012/01/03/gIQAbpWIZP_story_1.html

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/3/dc-bill-mandates-college-application-for-high-scho/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS