Posted on 05/11/2014 11:57:23 AM PDT by Kaslin
Many years ago, as a college Republican, I spent one summer in Austin working for a candidate in a special election for the Texas senate. My hometown was a liberal enclave with many college students -- unwashed, longhaired, pot-smoking students, it seemed to me -- who were predominantly Democrats. The more students who came out to vote the less likely our candidate was to win.
But our campaign strategists came up with a plan. They sent mailings to all the registered voters in precincts near the campus. Many cards came back because the addressee had moved, as college students often do. Voters no longer at the address on file with election authorities were not eligible to vote.
On Election Day, a fellow campaign worker and I went to a polling place to monitor voters. When they gave their names, we checked to see whether their mailings had come back. If so, we lodged an objection. The voters affected were not pleased.
If we had been asked to defend our actions, I imagine we would have come up with something about upholding the law and assuring the integrity of elections. But the people running the campaign never said anything like that.
What they said was that this was a great way to reduce the number of people voting for our opponent.
It didn't help, because he was too popular. But my superiors were not the last Republicans to figure that if you can't get people to vote for you, you can try to keep them from voting at all.
One GOP-dominated state after another has adopted new voter identification requirements in the name of preventing election fraud. In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Indiana law requiring anyone who wants to cast a ballot in person to show a driver's license or another approved photo ID.
The odd thing is that two judges who voted to uphold that law later had second thoughts. Federal appeals court Judge Richard Posner said last year he was wrong. Retired Justice John Paul Stevens, who wrote the Supreme Court opinion, says the court lacked the evidence it needed to overturn the law but now believes the dissenters had the better of the argument.
Fortunately, the legal issue is far from resolved. A federal court in Milwaukee recently struck down a Wisconsin voter ID law. In the Supreme Court case, Judge Lynn Adelman said, those challenging the law failed to provide enough evidence that it put an undue burden on the right to vote. In this case, he said, those challenging the law had evidence galore.
He found that 9 percent of the registered voters in Wisconsin don't have the IDs required by the law. In Milwaukee County alone, 1,640 voters have neither an approved photo ID nor any of the documents they need to get one. Poor and minority voters are especially likely to be prevented from voting by the new obstacles.
The burden might be tolerable if voter impersonation were a big problem. In fact, said Adelman, the state "could not point to a single instance of known voter impersonation occurring in Wisconsin at any time in the recent past." The state attorney general created an election fraud task force to find violations in the past three elections. It might as well have been looking for Sasquatch.
No one should be surprised that this type of chicanery hardly ever happens. Someone caught impersonating a Wisconsin voter may go to prison for three years. The risk is not balanced by a reward, because it's extremely unlikely that the fraudulent ballot would change the election outcome. Given all this, the judge wrote, "A person would have to be insane to commit voter impersonation fraud."
There is nothing unusual about Wisconsin. When Pennsylvania enacted a voter ID law, it was able to cite zero cases of voter impersonation. Ditto in Indiana. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott brags of successfully prosecuting 50 cases of election fraud. But the list his office sent me included only three cases in six years of someone being charged with voter impersonation at a polling place.
Republicans seem to be willing to go through an enormous amount of trouble to combat a crime that is highly rare and uniformly ineffectual. As a cure for fraudulent voting, a stringent voter ID law is like prescribing morphine for a hangnail. But as a cure for Democratic voting, it's hard to beat.
Does this guy also write for the Asspress?
The communist/facist/democrat party will win at any cost.
Are the progressives undertaking a gradual takeover of erstwhile “conservative” websites?
I think I’m going to have to take Townhall off of my bookmarked sites. The writer of this article is promoting talking points of the DNC & other progressive thought leaders.
Horse Hillary! There is only one reason to oppose voter ID.
This nitwit feels bad that he pointed out illegal voters?
I will never understand what is so bloody difficult, burdensome, racist, evocative of Jim Crow and slavery and poll taxes and every other injustice ever committed by man against man than to pull out your damn drivers license or your library card or your SS card (even though it’s not supposed to be used for ID) or something ANYTHING that might be construed as an ID card so that this privelege, right, honor, and duty of voting is somehow elevated above the act of handing out free cupcakes at a birthday party or even using a public restroom.
Pretty simple to enlarge the number of ‘proofs’ and include the nonsense number of 1640 people cited without the proper ID. Any sort of govt aid they get will need ID. How many of those lost theirs and too lazy to apply for a new one?
I was in the hospital recently and in the emergency room were any number of homeless people. I really think thats how far down the ladder one needs go to find people with no valid ID. This is likely where they found the 1640.
This is total BS. Why is it on Townhall? Have they gone over to the dark side?
It is really very simple, all Democrats are law abiding citizens and their accountability is above reproach. They is no need for them to provide identification!
no vote fraud look at this. http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/11/shocking-audio-dem-poll-watcher-kicking-out-gop-inspectors-in-philly-video/#!
9% of “registered” voters in Wisconsin don’t have an I.D. I assume anyone can walk in and register. There’s your fraud.
Seems likely. If people can register to vote with no id whatsoever, what prevents someone from registering a hundred times?
The Judge’s other pretzel logic includes:
1) the idea that the lack of prosecutions for vote fraud implies no vote fraud. With no voter id requirements, how could you ever catch anyone? D’oh...
2) that the theoretical 3 year penalty for vote fraud is a huge deterrent. But she notes that zero prosecutions, therefore no one has been sentenced to even 3 minutes, meaning the current law is unenforced and provides no deterrent at all.
She likely knows better. This ruling is just corrupt politics. Impeach and remove.
Couple of years back I went to renew my passport and was told the Penna birth certificate I had been using for fifty years for everything from voting registration to social security was now considered invalid - some strange story about a bunch of blank forms having been stolen from Harrisburg being used to create phony certificates, so I had to reapply for a new copy of the form (during the days of Fast-Eddie Rendell, so who knows what the truth was) - anyway, a quick call to Harrisburg got me a new BC in the overnight mail and a new passport was on the way in a week - it can be done, but it takes a little bit of intent and initiative.....
You need to check out the Mississippi Republican Senate runoff and move on to stuff like this.
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.