Posted on 08/29/2011 6:14:56 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
A number of states have recently passed voter-ID legislation among them, Texas, Alabama, Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Rhode Island. Two others, Georgia and Indiana, implemented such laws years ago. This trend has the Left hyperventilating. From former president Bill Clinton to NAACP head Benjamin Jealous, irresponsible cries of Jim Crow have been uttered in a losing attempt to sell Americans a great lie: that requiring someone to authenticate his or her identity at the polling place by showing a government-issued photo identification is anything like the despicable discrimination that once existed in the South.
Jealous blamed the worst and most racist elements in conservative tea-party groups for the voter-ID push. In truth, the vast majority of Americans of all racial and ethnic backgrounds (more than 75 percent in the latest Rasmussen poll) support voter-ID laws. Perhaps thats because Americans have to use a photo ID to obtain a library card, drink a beer, cash a check, board an airplane, buy a train ticket, or check in to a hotel. They understand that requiring voter ID is a commonsense reform that helps protect the security and integrity of our election process. Happily, its a requirement voters can easily meet.
Once you get past the race-baiting, you will find that opponents of voter ID generally rely on two arguments, equally specious: 1) There is no need for photo ID, because there is no voter fraud in the United States; 2) This is a deliberate effort to suppress the turnout of minority voters, who often dont have photo ID. Liberals keep repeating these false claims despite the fact that they have been disproved both in the courtroom and at the polling place.
The claim that there is no voter fraud in the U.S. is patently ridiculous, given our rich and unfortunate history of it. As the U.S. Supreme Court said when it upheld Indianas photo-ID law in 2008, Flagrant examples of such fraud . . . have been documented throughout this Nations history by respected historians and journalists. The liberal groups that fought Indianas law didnt have much luck with liberal justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the 63 decision. Before being named to the Supreme Court, Justice Stevens practiced law in Chicago, a hotbed of electoral malfeasance.
Some opponents have tried to narrow down the argument, claiming that voter ID can stop only impersonation fraud, and that this particular type of fraud is rare or nonexistent. But as the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals pointed out in the Indiana case, the relative rarity of prosecutions for impersonation fraud can be explained by the endemic underenforcement of voter-fraud cases and the extreme difficulty of apprehending a voter impersonator without the tools a photo ID needed to detect such fraud.
One of the most egregious examples was revealed by a Brooklyn grand jury in 1984, a case the New York Times conveniently ignores whenever it rails against voter ID. The grand jury detailed a widespread conspiracy that operated without detection for 14 years, involving not only impersonation of voters at the polls, but also voting under fictitious names that had been successfully registered. Thousands of fraudulent votes were cast in state and congressional elections.
When I mention that case in debates, the inevitable reply is that it happened a long time ago, as though the 1980s were the Dark Ages. Another well-documented case occurred in a city-council election in Hoboken, N.J., in 2007. The former zoning-board president noticed a group of men near his polling place being given index cards by two people. One of those men later entered the polling place and tried to vote in the name of another registered voter who no longer lived in the ward. The impostor was caught only because he happened to be challenged by the zoning-board president. He admitted to the police that the group of men from a homeless shelter had been paid $10 each to vote using others names.
One of the reasons that Wisconsin changed its voter-ID law was the finding of a special task force, set up by the Milwaukee Police Department after the 2004 election, that residents from other states had registered and voted. Numerous staffers from out of state working for the John Kerry campaign and the Environmental Victory Campaign, a liberal political-action committee, had illegally registered and voted in Milwaukee.
If liberals couldnt convince Justice Stevens, they may also have a hard time with Chris Matthews, a former Tip ONeill staffer and reliable liberal cheerleader in most circumstances. When the topic came up on Hardball, Matthews admitted that this type of impersonation fraud has gone on since the Fifties. He explained that people call up to see whether you voted or are going to vote, and then all of a sudden somebody does come and vote for you. Matthews knows that this is an old strategy in big-city politics: I know all about it in North Philly its what went on, and I believe it still goes on.
In addition to deterring and preventing impersonation fraud, voter ID can prevent voting under fictitious registrations, double voting by individuals registered in more than one state, and voting by illegal aliens. There are numerous cases of these types of fraud. Dozens of ACORN employees have been prosecuted for voter-registration fraud and those are only the ones who have been caught. If a fraudulent form gets through the minimal-to-nonexistent screening efforts made by election officials when they process new voter-registration forms, then the potential exists for bogus votes to be cast in the names of nonexistent people.
The possibility of double voting was illustrated by an incident that was highly embarrassing to the League of Women Voters in the Indiana voter-ID case. A newspaper in Indiana decided to interview a voter who was highlighted by the League as a victim of disenfranchisement in its amicus brief contesting the law. It turned out she had had difficulty voting because she had tried to use a Florida drivers license to vote in Indiana. Not only did she have a Florida drivers license, she was also registered to vote in Florida, where she owned a second home. In fact, she had claimed residency in Florida by filing for a homestead exemption on her property taxes.
More than one study has found individuals who are registered in more than one state. A New York Daily News article in 2004 found 46,000 New Yorkers registered to vote in both New York and Florida. Between 400 and 1,000 had voted in both places in at least one election. (Remember, George W. Bush won Florida in 2000 by a margin of only 537 votes.)
There have also been many reported cases of non-citizens registering and voting. A federal grand-jury report released in 1984 found large numbers of aliens registered to vote in Chicago. The U.S. attorney estimated that at least 80,000 illegal aliens were registered, and dozens were indicted and convicted for registering and voting.
Readers may remember that a California congressional election was almost overturned in 1996 because of illegal voting by non-citizens. Loretta Sanchez beat incumbent U.S. Rep. Bob Dornan by a mere 979 votes. The election was investigated by a House committee that found clear and convincing evidence of 624 invalid votes by non-citizens and circumstantial evidence of another 196 non-citizens voting. This election might have been stolen by illegal voting (and it probably was, since the House investigation compared the voter list only to INS records, which do not contain information on illegal aliens who have not been detained).
There may not be massive voter fraud in all of our elections, but there are enough reported cases and prosecutions to make it obvious that we need to take basic steps to ensure the security of our voting system.
The baseless claim that voter ID is a Republican plot to depress the votes of minorities, who disproportionately support Democrats, certainly isnt made by those Democrats who overwhelmingly control the Rhode Island legislature that passed voter ID. State representative Jon Brien, a Democratic sponsor of the bill, said it was wrong for party leaders to make this a Republican-versus-Democrat issue. Its not. Its simply a good-government issue. Brien added that we as representatives have a duty to the citizenry to ensure the integrity of our elections, and the requirement to show an ID will ensure that integrity. State senator Harold Metts, a black Democrat whose support of Rhode Islands voter-ID bill angered the ACLU and other leftist organizations, said he was more interested in doing the right thing and stopping voter fraud. And polling shows that the so-called leaders of the civil-rights establishment who oppose voter ID are actually out of touch with their constituents, who recognize that voter fraud often hits hardest in minority communities.
Election data in Georgia demonstrate that concern about a negative effect on the Democratic or minority vote is baseless. Turnout there increased more dramatically in 2008 the first presidential election held after the states photo-ID law went into effect than it did in states without photo ID. Georgia had a record turnout in 2008, the largest in its history nearly 4 million voters. And Democratic turnout was up an astonishing 6.1 percentage points from the 2004 election, the fourth-largest increase of any state. The black share of the statewide vote increased from 25 percent in 2004 to 30 percent in 2008, according to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. According to Census Bureau surveys, 65 percent of the black voting-age population voted in the 2008 election, compared with only 54.4 percent in 2004, an increase of more than ten percentage points.
For those who might reply that this was because Barack Obama was on the ballot, think again. Mississippi, with an equally large black population and no voter ID, had its Democratic turnout increase by only 2.35 percentage points. Georgias registration records show that while only 42.9 percent of registered black Georgians voted in 2006, when there was no photo-ID requirement, 50.4 percent voted in the 2010 congressional elections an increase of more than seven percentage points. Georgias secretary of state recently pointed out that, compared with 2006, voter turnout in 2010 among African Americans outpaced the growth of that populations pool of registered voters by more than 20 percentage points.
Indiana witnessed similar results. In the state considered to have the nations strictest voter-ID law, turnout in the Democratic presidential primary in 2008 quadrupled from the 2004 election, when there was no photo-ID law. In the general election, the turnout of Democratic voters increased by 8.32 percentage points from 2004, the largest increase in Democratic turnout of any state. Neighboring Illinois, which has no photo-ID requirement and is Obamas home state, had its Democratic turnout increase by only 4.4 percentage points barely half of Indianas increase. In the 2010 election, Indiana was one of the states with a substantial increase in black turnout: The black share of the state vote was higher in 2010 than it was in 2008, a banner year for black turnout, according to the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies. The black share of the total vote went from only 7 percent in 2008 to 12 percent in 2010.
Numerous studies including those by the Heritage Foundation, the University of Missouri, the University of Delaware, and the University of NebraskaLincoln have looked at data from many states and several elections and concluded that voter ID does not depress turnout. In fact, the Delaware/Nebraska study said that concerns about voter-identification laws affecting turnout are much ado about nothing.
About the only thing the Left has had to rely on for its hollow claims about photo ID is a flawed 2006 study titled Citizens without Proof by the Brennan Center at NYUs law school supposedly showing that millions of Americans who are eligible to vote lack photo ID. The Brennan Center has been vigorous in opposing almost every sensible voter reform, from voter ID to requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote. This 2006 study is dubious in its methodology and especially suspect in its sweeping conclusions. It is based on a survey of only 987 voting-age American citizens, although it contains no information on how it was determined whether a respondent was actually an American citizen entitled to vote, and might easily have included illegal and legal aliens, felons, and others who are ineligible. The survey then uses the responses of these 987 individuals to estimate, based on the 2000 Census, the number of Americans without valid documentation. Although the report says it was weighted to account for underrepresentation of race, it does not provide the methodology used.
By neglecting to ask whether respondents were actual or likely voters, registered voters, or even eligible voters, the study ignored the most relevant data: the number of eligible citizens who would have actually voted but could not because of voter-ID laws. All pollsters know that the only really accurate polls are of likely voters, not of the voting-age population. Surveys of registered voters have shown the exact opposite of the Brennan Center study: American University found that less than one-half of 1 percent of registered voters in Maryland, Indiana, and Mississippi lacked a government-issued ID. A 2006 survey of more than 36,000 voters found that only 23 people in the entire sample would be unable to vote because of an ID requirement.
Also, the Brennan Center survey didnt ask whether people had IDs; it asked whether IDs were readily available. And the question about citizenship documentation asked whether respondents had access in a place where you can quickly find it if you had to show it tomorrow, even though elections are not scheduled on such a short-term basis. This was obviously intended to skew the results. The survey also failed to ask whether respondents had student IDs, which are acceptable under many state laws, or tribal IDs, which are acceptable in some states, including Georgia and Arizona. On one question, 14 percent of respondents were so confused that they said they had both a U.S. birth certificate and naturalization papers.
The weakness of the case against voter ID has been much in evidence in courtrooms. The Indiana and Georgia voter-ID laws were upheld by state and federal courts. In the Georgia case, the federal court pointed out that after two years of litigation, none of the plaintiffs, including the NAACP, could produce a single otherwise eligible voter who did not have a photo ID or could not easily obtain one. That failure was particularly acute, the court wrote, in light of the Plaintiffs contention that a large number of Georgia voters lack acceptable photo ID. Similarly, in the Indiana case, the federal court noted that despite apocalyptic assertions of wholesale voter disenfranchisement, Plaintiffs have produced not a single piece of evidence of any identifiable registered voter who would be prevented from voting.
The Georgia court said that the claim that voter ID is the same as a poll tax represents a dramatic overstatement. Imposing tangential burdens does not transform a regulation into a poll tax and the cost of time and transportation to obtain a free ID cannot plausibly qualify as a prohibited poll tax because those same costs also result from voter registration and in-person voting requirements, which one would not reasonably construe as a poll tax. All of the states implementing voter ID have provided free IDs for anyone who does not already have one. As Rhode Island state senator Harold Metts said, In this day and age, very few adults lack one of the forms of identification that will be accepted, and the rare person who does can get a free voter-ID card.
With the courts against them, the public against them, and the turnout in actual elections against them, what do liberals have left? Only racial polemics and fear-mongering. Vitriolic rhetoric is a sign of desperation, since claims of suppression and intimidation have been shown to be completely untrue. Is the problem here that certain liberals want to be able to preserve what Chris Matthews says still goes on in the Democratic machines in places like Philadelphia? We can be grateful that even some Democrats at the local level are finally realizing that everyone who believes in our democratic system has an interest in ensuring the security and integrity of our election process. Thats why it was Democrats who passed the Rhode Island law, and Democrats in Kansas who signed on with their Republican colleagues to pass their voter-ID law.
As Texas state representative Joe Pickett, a Democrat from El Paso, said, If I really, truly thought that this would disenfranchise somebody, I wouldve voted against. In these days and times, its just not the case. . . . Having a basic identification is a function of everyday life.
Nobody likes standing in line at the DMV, but elections come only every other year, and are scheduled well in advance. There is no reason for a voter to lack a photo ID, and every reason to require one.
We need to hit this before November, 2012.
So, states passing voter ID legislation wink and nod, because they know only minorities will be checked? MMMMMMMMMM...
Absolutely right on. If we have to defend voter Id cards this article should be saved in our computers and be the basis of letters to the editor.
Bump.
The liberals hyperventilate about this issue. The liberals on MSNBC tell us that there are many elderly black people in the south who don’t have an ID, and that they will be discouraged from voting. And they tell us that some places, such as Wisconsin, aren’t allowing students to vote in their college town because their ID shows their original home address, not their college address. Both of these allegedly violate our constitutional rights. That’s the liberal line, anyway.
The talking heads on MSNBC are silent about ACORN or abuse of absentee ballots, voting by mail, early voting, etc. I think they are concerned that the padded votes for Democrat candidates in the past will not be padded so much next time.
1) The left knows they’ll lose a significant portion of the total vote if every voter is verified.
2) The left knows that the race card has always worked well in the past.
Though 1 and 2 are not related, forcing a relationship is to their advantage, so the left will do so.
Now if we can just get similar laws passed in states with big electoral votes, (California, New York,...), we might be getting somewhere. All in all, a fantastic start.
You need an ID to get a gubmint benefits card. You also need an ID to enter the Casino to spend the cash portion you get.
The demoncrats want to be able to vote early, vote often, especially if deceased.
About time for some accountability.
Minorities hardest hit again!
On one question, 14 percent of respondents were so confused that they said they had both a U.S. birth certificate and naturalization papers.
Where did they find these respondents?
Saved, good idea!
I live in a heavily black county in central Alabama. We’ve been showing our IDs for some time to the elderly black folks who man the polling places. If it’s not a problem in one of the poorest and most rural counties in the deep South, I don’t see how it could be a problem anywhere.
Chris Matthews telling the truth about voter fraud ping...
Everyone gets checked in Florida - what’s the big deal about showing a picture ID?
Without valid ID you cannot:
-Cash a check or open a bank account
-Fly
-Drive
-Drink
-Rent an apartment
I can’t buy that that many people just float through life without any sort of valid photo ID, but I’m sure a few do.
I work in a branch of a bank - and once in a while, I’ll encounter an elderly client with either no ID at all or a long-expired driver’s license, and usually, unless another employee is willing to take the responsibility for ID’ing the person by their own recognizance, I cannot help them.
Oh, and in my recollection, these elderly folks have all been white.
Without valid ID you cannot:
-Cash a check or open a bank account
-Fly
-Drive
-Drink
-Rent an apartment
I can’t buy that that many people just float through life without any sort of valid photo ID, but I’m sure a few do.
I work in a branch of a bank - and once in a while, I’ll encounter an elderly client with either no ID at all or a long-expired driver’s license, and usually, unless another employee is willing to take the responsibility for ID’ing the person by their own recognizance, I cannot help them.
Oh, and in my recollection, these elderly folks have all been white.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.