The author of the posted article from the Canadian Free Press that began this thread states in the first of her bullet points that Obama lost all four states that had voter ID laws: Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, and Tennessee. I believe I read somewhere, however, that two more states had voter ID and Obama lost both of them as well.
Intuitively, you would think that voter ID would probably cut down on the shenanigans. But you can't really prove that it did from the data at hand. Remember that Romney was supposed to win all of those states anyway, and McCain won all except Indiana, which he lost narrowly in 2008. (The guess is that none of them had voter ID in effect in '08.)
Therein lies a dilemma about voter ID laws. Republicans tend to be more supportive of voter ID, so you are more likely to get it enacted in "red" states, states that the fraudsters generally concede from the get-go. However, in the swing states where anti-fraud measures are most needed, voter ID is more difficult to pass because of strong opposition from elected Dems.
Why would you not expect much from John Fund?
PA, MI, WI, OH, VA (State Senate Tie broken by GOP LT Governor), and Fl, all have GOP Governors and legislatures. Minority democrats in those states should have no say on anything.
We also have the courts to deal with.
There are actually 30 states with some form of voter ID laws.
Here is a good link for information: Voter Id Laws By State
There are 4 states with what are called "strict photo id requirements". That is the 4 states mentioned in the article. Note, this is not all "voter id" states, just the 4 with "strict PHOTO id" requirements.
It is not surprising that Obama didn't win in these 4 states -- they are republican now, here is Romney's margin of victory in each state:
Of the 7 other states shown with true photo id laws, Obama won 4 of the 7.
Of the states with non-strict photo id laws for which the remedy is a strict non-photo id, there are 3 such states, virginia being one of those, and Obama won two of those three.
So, it is incorrect to say Obama didn't win any voter id state, or that he didn't win any photo id states. If you accept the definition of "strict photo id" as given on this web site, then it is correct to say Obama didn't win any of those 4 states, but also meaningless, as there would be no way for Obama to steal any of those 4 states, and they were never really in contention (Georgia was actually closer than I would have thought, but I imagine that's partly because nobody was really contesting it).
I am a strong proponent of voter ID rules, and would prefer photo id requirements. Our state also allowed a registration card, and mailed registration cards to everybody. I could see that being workable, although clearly you could steal someone's mail and use their card; I think once you are willing to commit a felony though, it would be just as easy to print up fake ids, if it was worth it to you to steal elections.
The problem I see is that, if you really are at a point where you can get hundreds of thousands of people to break the law, in dozens of states, NO acceptable form of voter identification will be possible, because the same people who are committing felonies will make sure to block anything, and the average voter won't want to be inconvenienced.