I think Democrats have relied on fraudulent voters for years.
There can be no other reason for them to cry so hard about somone showing an ID card to vote.
They know it, and we know it.
One of the ways the dems have had Photo I.D. laws overturned has been a clever conjunction of the “disparate impact” nonsense with a neat statistical trick.
“Disparate impact” rears its ugly head every time statistics show that one group (i.e., blacks) is disadvantaged proportionally more than another (i.e., whites or, perhaps, Asians.) For instance—when a firefighter’s promotion test had whites performing better than blacks, the municipality was sued due to the disparate impact the test had on the aggrieved minority. (No lawsuit has been filed on the disparate impact that superior basketball skills has foisted on the 88% of the population—whites—that only comprise about 15% of the NBA, but I digress.)
Anyway—back to voting, and the statistical trick that was used. I’m rounding the numbers for simplicity, but the concept is easily understood:
Suppose that there are 1 million white voters and 1 million black voters in a particular state. Suppose that, of the 1 million white voters, 999,999 have picture IDs. Suppose that, of the million black voters, “only” 999,998 have picture IDs. To those of us with some schooling (I have a BS in Math, among other things) it would seem that, statistically, blacks are just about as likely as whites to own a photo ID. But, wait! Let’s flip the numbers to the converse. Per million voters—1 white DOES NOT have the photo ID. (See where this is headed?) Yet, per million voters—2 blacks DO NOT have the photo ID.
Conclusion: BLACKS ARE TWICE AS LIKELY AS WHITES TO LACK A PHOTO ID.
This analysis, as I said, simplifies the numbers, but the approach is identical to that taken by those who got at least one state law revoked. The fact that Photo IDs are easy to get, would be paid for by the state, and even done at the voters’ home were all deemed to be irrelevant. Disparate impact ruled again.