Democrats Terrified!

[Tigermike 3,657]

Voter ID terrifies Democrats

Justice Department seeks to undermine our elections

By Robert Knight The Washington Times

The most consequential election in our lifetime is still 10 months away, but it’s clear from the Obama administration’s order halting South Carolina’s new photo ID law that the Democrats already have brought a gun to a knife fight.

How else to describe this naked assault on the right of a state to create minimal requirements to curb voter fraud?

On Dec. 23, Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez sent a letter ordering South Carolina to stop enforcing its photo ID law. Mr. Perez, who heads the Civil Rights Division that booted charges against the New Black Panther Party for intimidating voters in Philadelphia in 2008, said South Carolina’s law would disenfranchise thousands of minority voters.

South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson rejected Mr. Perez’s math and explained on Fox News why the law is necessary. The state Department of Motor Vehicles audited a state Election Commission report that said 239,333 people were registered to vote but had no photo ID. The DMV found that 37,000 were deceased, more than 90,000 had moved to other states, and others had names not matched to IDs. That left only 27,000 people registered without a photo ID but who could vote by signing an affidavit as to their identity.

Mr. Wilson told me by phone Thursday that he would file a challenge to the order in federal district court in January. Asked whether he felt South Carolina was being singled out, he declined to speculate on motives. However, citing the National Labor Relations Board’s order to invalidate the voter-approved union card check amendment, the NLRB’s order to stop a new Boeing Co. plant, and the Justice Department’s suit to halt the state’s immigration law, he said, “There certainly is a pattern of the federal government overreaching into South Carolina.”

Leading Democrats loudly equate recently enacted photo ID legislation as updated versions of Jim Crow laws that once robbed people of their constitutional right to vote simply because of their race. But photo ID laws and other voter integrity measures cover everyone. Like other states, South Carolina provides photo IDs if a person cannot afford one.

The U.S. Constitution empowers the states to enact voting procedures with minimal input from the national government, such as setting the voting age and election days for federal offices. The 15th and 19th amendments ensure that no one is denied the right to vote based on race or sex.

In 1965, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, which authorizes the U.S. attorney general or a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to review changes to voting procedures or redistricting in nine states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia), some counties in California, Florida, New York, North Carolina and South Dakota, and some townships in Michigan and New Hampshire.

Congress did so to counter clearly established patterns of voter intimidation of blacks. Now, the Justice Department, which, under Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. could be renamed the Retribution Department, looks the other way depending on the race of the parties involved.

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s 2005 photo ID law, which the Democratic Party and several interest groups had challenged as a “severe burden.”

But, as American Civil Rights Union attorney Peter Ferrara noted in the group’s friend- of-the-court brief:

“No one has been denied the right to vote by the Indiana Voter ID Law. The record clearly establishes without challenge that 99 percent of the Voting Age Population in Indiana already has the required ID, in the form of driver’s licenses, passports, or other identification. Of the remaining 1 percent, senior citizens and the disabled are automatically eligible to vote by absentee ballot, and such absentee voting is exempt from the Voter ID Law.”

Does that sound “severe” to you?As Mr. Ferrara notes, “the slight burden of additional paperwork for a fraction of 1 percent, to show who they are and thereby prove their eligibility to vote, cannot come close to outweighing the interests of all legitimate legal voters in maintaining their effective vote.”

A bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform in 2005 chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker III found no evidence that requiring photo IDs would suppress the minority vote. The panel recommended a national photo ID system and a campaign to register voters.

In a 2008 column, Mr. Carter and Mr. Baker cited a study by American University’s Center for Democracy and Election Management that echoed the election commission. Among other things, researchers found that in three states - Indiana, Mississippi and Maryland - about 1.2 percent of registered voters had no photo ID.

Since the GOP took a majority of governorships and legislatures in 2010 and continued enacting voting safeguards, you can feel the panic in Democratic strongholds.

The Obama administration is playing the same race card that Democrats have played for decades. But this is not about race; it’s about whether legitimately cast votes will be wiped out by illegally cast votes.

In Chicago, a federal investigation of the 1982 gubernatorial election estimated that at least 100,000 illegal votes had been cast and that voter fraud had been routine for many years. In 1960, Mayor Richard J. Daley’s Chicago Democrat machine almost certainly sealed John F. Kennedy’s presidential election by delaying reporting by Democratic-controlled precincts and counting them for Kennedy.

Vice President Richard M. Nixon, the Republican candidate, had a compelling case for a challenge, but chose not to do so. The media would have crucified him as a sore loser without seriously investigating fraud allegations.

Conversely, in 2000, when Democrat Al Gore challenged George W. Bush’s razor-thin victory in Florida, the media flogged Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris because she refused to overlook “hanging chads” and other questionable vote counting.

The stakes are enormous, and the Obama administration is quite aware of the danger posed by an aroused electorate on a level playing field.

With the economy in a ditch, their only hope of stemming the conservative tide might be to rig the returns, especially where political machines still prevail.

Robert Knight is senior fellow for the American Civil Rights Union and a columnist for The Washington Times.

link

[RunInRed 18,113]

One party trying to suppress the vote, another trying to enable it. Not trying to be flippant but this is an age old maxim which we're reminded of every election cycle. Nothing new here.

[Tigermike 3,657]

One party trying to suppress the vote, another trying to enable it. Not trying to be flippant but this is an age old maxim which we're reminded of every election cycle. Nothing new here.

No one is trying to suppress anyone's vote and you know it. But that's a nice way you chose to frame the democrats continued desire to steal elections.

And the only thing you left out is to call all Republicans racist.

[autigeremt 7,133]

How is it suppressing the vote???? Please tell me how showing your ID to prove who you are is suppressing the vote?

The only people who would need to worry are those who vote illegally, which is why the Democrats are so upset over it.

[cptau 169]

The same folks that oppose voter ID want you to show an national health care ID for access to universal healthcare........

[Grumps 3,706]

One party trying to suppress the vote, another trying to enable it. Not trying to be flippant but this is an age old maxim which we're reminded of every election cycle. Nothing new here.

I think you are being dishonest in this post.

[AURaptor 1,137]

One party trying to suppress the vote, another trying to enable it. Not trying to be flippant but this is an age old maxim which we're reminded of every election cycle. Nothing new here.

One of the biggest lies in politics today, stating that showing a valid ID is in anyway an attempt to "suppress" the vote. Well, it only suppresses the voter fraud, if you want to be honest about it. Other than that, you have no case.

[RunInRed 18,113]

A phantom problem, indeed...

Oddly enough, requiring a photo ID to cast a vote would only be effective in preventing individuals from impersonating other voters at the polls -- an occurrence that is, according to a study released by the Brennan Center, more rare than getting struck by lightning. In fact, voter fraud (when individuals cast ballots despite knowing that they are ineligible to vote, in an attempt to defraud the election system) is hardly a realistic political concern. From the Bush administration's five-year national "war on voter fraud," there were only 86 convictions of illegal voting out of more than 196 million votes cast. Of those 86 convictions, only 26 were attributable to individual voters, and most of those were misunderstandings about eligibility. What is more, connection to voter fraud in a federal election carries grave punishments, including a $10,000 fine and five years in prison, in addition to any state penalties. This is a risk that very few people are willing to take, particularly for the result of one incremental vote.

Whether by intention or not, politicians and media have managed to conflate a host of election administration problems under the umbrella of "voter fraud" -- a move which has fueled a Republican-backed campaign across multiple states to pass voter ID laws. Things like clerical or typographical errors in the poll books, registration records, and underlying data are examples of occurrences that may get mistaken for voter fraud. Justin Levitt, author of The Truth About Voter Fraud, cites matching voter rolls against each other or against some other source to find alleged double voters, dead voters, or otherwise ineligible voters as the most common source of superficial claims of voter fraud, as well as the most common source of error. Thus, it is largely human error in the voting process that results in inaccurate accusations of voter fraud and feeds exaggerated concern over this "phantom problem."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/victoria-coats/voter-id-laws_b_950291.html

Facts and stuff. They'll get your argument every time.

[RunInRed 18,113]

More...

An analysis of more than 250 claims of fraud in the Supreme Court's photo ID case

• Finding not one proven case of a fraudulent vote that the challenged law could prevent
  
• Exposing false assertions that photo ID is required for common activities
  

Read more here: http://www.truthaboutfraud.org/pdf/TruthAboutVoterFraud.pdf

[RunInRed 18,113]

So let us ask ourselves, who is really being the 'racist' ($1 to TigerMike) beating this drum?

[tiger88 934]

Huffington Post, lol.

[tgr4lfe 220]

So the Black Panthers and ACORN did nothing wrong the last election? You know as well as everyone else for all the fraud or intimidation cases there are many, many more than didn't get caught.

[RunInRed 18,113]

Huffington Post, lol.

Dispute the facts not the source. Waiting...

[RunInRed 18,113]

So the Black Panthers and ACORN did nothing wrong the last election? You know as well as everyone else for all the fraud or intimidation cases there are many, many more than didn't get caught.

Again, I'm going off the facts. If you have some in support of your position, let's see them.

[tgr4lfe 220]

1325539568[/url]' post='790414']

1325538684[/url]' post='790409']

So the Black Panthers and ACORN did nothing wrong the last election? You know as well as everyone else for all the fraud or intimidation cases there are many, many more than didn't get caught.

Again, I'm going off the facts. If you have some in support of your position, let's see them.

ACORN fraud

Judicial Watch FBI docs

That is just a couple of 1000s from a google search. I think it is pretty obvious ACORN was/has been no good for many years.

[RunInRed 18,113]

Agh, the ACORN argument, how'd we forget?

Again, less than 100 cases from 200 Million cases. Perspective.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

Artur Davis seems to think differently after conversing with prominent Democratic operatives here in Alabama. I find it laughable that anyone thinks requiring photo ID is "voter suppression."

[RunInRed 18,113]

What happens to those w/o a photo ID and it is cost prohibitive for them to get one? Some states have 'workarounds' but many don't.

There's also the intimidation factor for those who have made mistakes in their past. Spin it anyway you want, but there are political reasons why most push for this law and you know it.

[tgr4lfe 220]

1325540493[/url]' post='790416']

Agh, the ACORN argument, how'd we forget?

Again, less than 100 cases from 200 Million cases. Perspective.

Well, of course you want to forget, since Obama is so connected to them. They are the poster child of a group cheating to get votes.

According to that first link there are a lot more more than 100 fraudulent cards. I don't know if you are just talking # of people charged or what, but if those 100 were connected to 500 fraudulent voters cards each, then there is a problem. So, as long as the percentage is small it is acceptable for people, groups to do this? Come on, man, I don't think even you would accept that?!?

[Auburnfan91 1,408]

One party trying to suppress the vote, another trying to enable it. Not trying to be flippant but this is an age old maxim which we're reminded of every election cycle. Nothing new here.

On the form to register to vote you have to put your driver's license number. Do you think requiring citizens to put their driver's license number is racial profiling or suppresses the vote?

[RunInRed 18,113]

Does the constitution require you to have a drivers license or photo ID to vote?

[tgr4lfe 220]

1325540873[/url]' post='790419']

What happens to those w/o a photo ID and it is cost prohibitive for them to get one? Some states have 'workarounds' but many don't.

There's also the intimidation factor for those who have made mistakes in their past. Spin it anyway you want, but there are political reasons why most push for this law and you know it.

Why would there a problem for someone with a criminal history getting a $15-$20 state ID? Heck, if someone can prove they cant afford a $15-$20 state ID, then they get it free, imo. Political reasons opposing are far greater I do believe, in that, helping get someone elected, by perpetuating fraud all across the country.

[tgr4lfe 220]

1325541351[/url]' post='790423']

Does the constitution require you to have a drivers license or photo ID to vote?

Does the law say something about voter fraud? How do you propose that voter fraud be limited?

[RunInRed 18,113]

Again, this notion of wide-spread voter fraud is an urban myth, as the facts above prove. It's like trying to prevent a child stealing candy from a convenient store with a fleet of fighter jets.

[TitanTiger 21,064]

Does the constitution require you to have a drivers license or photo ID to vote?

I don't think it even requires ID at all, of any sort. So unless you're proposing that we just drop the requirement to show any ID whatsoever, we're just arguing over what should constitute a proper and valid ID at the polling places. I hardly think a standard photo ID such as a driver's license or equivalent is asking too much.