Political News and Commentary with the Right Perspective. NAVIGATION
  • Front Page
  • News
  • Multimedia
  • Tags
  • RSS Feed

  • Advertise on RightMichigan.com


    Get the RightMighigan.com toolbar!



    Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?

    Raise the curtain.

    Lies, Damned Lies, and Vote Suppression Allegations

    By Kevin Rex Heine, Section News
    Posted on Thu Jul 07, 2011 at 11:57:43 AM EST
    Tags: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, potentially 27 other states, ballot box integrity, electoral vote math, 10% of 10%, Ruth Johnson (all tags)

    Promoted for Ruth Johnson mention

    To anyone with whom I've been in regular contact for the past eight months or so, what I'm about to say won't come as a big surprise:  My wife, Christie, is about 33 weeks pregnant.

    I mention that to say this:  I was with my wife in the doctor's office a couple of weeks ago, and the USA Today headline caught my eye.  Evidently, there are some republican controlled state legislatures that are taking steps to crack down on the most dangerous form of fraud in any free society.  Pay attention to the map available from the National Conference of State Legislatures, we'll be referring to it after the break.

    If you're familiar with the PEW Center Election Preview 2008 and compare its map to the NCSL map, then you'll notice that there's been considerable change in identification requirements since three years ago.  The NCSL map is based on the most recent enacted state-by-state legislation, and the article contains the most recent legislative activity as well as the current state-by-state identification requirements, so it's a considerably more reliable indicator of where things stand on a state-by-state basis.

    According to the expanded online version of USA Today's dead-tree article:

    "It's remarkable," Jennie Bowser, a senior fellow at the National Conference of State Legislatures, said of the proliferation of new laws.  In all, 33 states have considered new voter ID laws this year.  "I very rarely see one single issue come up in so many state legislatures in a single session," she said.  "This issue has historically fallen along stark partisan lines.  Democrats tend to oppose voter ID, and Republicans tend to favor it.  This year, there are a lot of new Republican majorities in legislatures."

    Evidently, the 2010 elections swept republicans into two-chamber control of the legislatures of 26 states (a record, so I've been told), and many of them are acting like it.  Of the 33 states either have taken or are taking some action to tighten down on identification requirements at the polls, many fall into the category of "competitive" or "battleground" when discussing presidential elections.  And, as you might expect, BHO and his minions are none too pleased with this.  From the same article:

    David Axelrod, a top strategist in President Obama's re-election campaign, called the wave of new legislation a "calculated strategy" by Republicans to "hold down voter turnout."

    "I find it ironic at a time when all over the world people are struggling, marching, even dying, for the right to vote and cast meaningful votes that anybody in this country would be working to limit the franchise," Axelrod told USA TODAY.

    He said the campaign would "organize vigorously" to make voters aware of the new requirements.

    Mr. Axelrod, the only voter turnout that's going to be suppressed is that of those who don't belong at the polls in the first place.  I know that you're going to be organizing vigorously around these new requirements, because ballot box integrity has to scare the bejesus out of the ACORN network.  Predictably, this also includes La Raza, because tightened down identification requirements means that it'll be harder for the socialist-progressive party to round up the illegal vote come harvest time next year.

    Hell, even quietly loosening immigration enforcement, via a "prosecutorial discretion" memo (read: stealth-DREAM Act), may not be enough in those states where the ID requirements have been tightened down.  And if pending bills in 12 states ultimately pass both legislative chambers and obtain gubernatorial signatures, then Alaska, Delaware, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island will be joining those 9 states (see this article's tags) who've already taken action to make it a little tougher for election thieves to accomplish their dirty work.

    Realistically, all 12 of those states may not approve stricter voter ID legislation in time for the 2012 elections, but just the possibility of 21 to 36 states with stricter-than-minimum identification requirements for voting has the lefties in the media wasting no time editorializing about how all of this legislative activity to protect the integrity of the ballot box is really a partisan conspiracy to accomplish vote suppression.  According to the "Our View" op-ed by J. Tyler Klassen:

    Scratch just gently beneath the surface, and these new measures appear unnecessary at best.  Voter fraud is rare and consists largely of the types of actions that IDs would not correct, such as vote-buying and voter intimidation.  Fraud is already kept in check by elections officials, poll watchers from both parties, and acceptance of alternatives to photo IDs, such as utility bills.

    There is also ample reason to doubt the sincerity of states that say they will provide IDs.  When Georgia imposed an ID law in 2005, courts barred the state from charging for them, calling such fees a poll tax.  But given the true motive behind such laws, it's likely that states will find other ways to make the IDs hard to get.

    Just as Democrats try to help their cause by making it easier to vote through expedited registration and early voting, Republicans see a benefit in lowering the turnout among certain voters.  The people most likely to be dissuaded by the hassle of obtaining an ID card -- the old and infirm, the young, and the poor -- tend to vote Democratic.

    While both parties are guilty of self-interested behavior, the national interest of addressing the USA's deplorably low election participation rates clearly falls on the side of making it easier, not harder, to vote.

    This, in spite of the acknowledgement by Mr. Klassen that there is theoretically nothing wrong with requiring photo ID to vote, and his admission that SCOTUS upheld Indiana's voter ID law, one of the strictest in the nation.  You'll notice that he doesn't mention that the Georgia law was otherwise upheld, and that all states mandating state-issued identification as a voting requirement have provided ways for all adult legal residents to obtain a basic ID free of charge.  (However, this fact was pointed out by Fredreka Schouten in the expanded online article I referred to earlier.)  Nope, instead, Mr. Klassen sets up multiple straw man arguments to support his position, and appears to content himself with that as "evidence" to back up his case.

    Rather than shred him myself, I'll simply refer my readers to the "Opposing View" argument, authored by Hans A. vonSpakovsky:

    Voter ID can significantly defeat and deter impersonation fraud at the polls, voting under fictitious names, double-voting by individuals registered in more than one state, and voting by non-citizens.  As the Supreme Court has pointed out, "flagrant examples of such fraud ... have been documented throughout this nation's history."

    No one claims that this occurs in every election.  But, as the Supreme Court concluded, "not only is the risk of voter fraud real," but "it could affect the outcome of a close election."  It also erodes public confidence in the results.

    Numerous academic studies have also shown that voter ID does not depress the turnout of minority, poor, and elderly voters.  Georgia and Indiana saw no decrease in the turnout of such voters in elections after their voter ID laws went into effect.  All the federal and state lawsuits filed against Georgia and Indiana were thrown out ... because the plaintiffs couldn't produce anyone who would be unable to vote because of the voter ID requirements.

    In Georgia, the court said this failure "was particularly acute" because the plaintiffs (including the NAACP) claimed that huge numbers of Georgia voters lacked an ID.  In Indiana, the court noted that "despite apocalyptic assertions of wholesale vote disenfranchisement," the plaintiffs "produced not a single piece of evidence of any identifiable registered voter who would be prevented from voting."

    I suspect that I'm not the only person who finds it amusing that the NAACP, who are masters at victim fishing, couldn't find even one identifiable registered voter who would be prevented from voting under some of the strictest voter ID laws in the nation.  To quote Daniel L. Whitney, "I don't care who ya are, that's funny right there."

    And before I go forward with some of the potential implications of tighter identification restrictions on the 2012 elections, let me sidebar briefly and identify the four categories into which the several states can be divided when it comes to voter identification requirements.

    Nine states (tagged in this article) have strict photo identification laws.  This means that voters must show a state-issued photo ID in order to vote, or otherwise must cast a provisional ballot and follow up within a defined time period to prove eligibility.  Alabama and Florida aren't as strict as the other seven in this category, but they are much stricter than the next group.

    • Alabama - HB 19 enacted
    • Florida
    • Georgia
    • Indiana
    • Kansas - HB 2067 enacted
    • South Carolina - HB 3003 enacted, but awaiting USDOJ pre-clearance for implementation
    • Tennessee - SB 16 enacted
    • Texas - SB 14 enacted, but awaiting USDOJ pre-clearance for implementation
    • Wisconsin - AB 7 enacted

    Five states have what are called non-strict photo identification laws.  This means that voters are asked for a photo ID, but may vote (full, non-provisional ballot) without one if they meet other criteria.  Of these five, the Hawaii Legislature attempted to enact a strict-identification law, but HB 1359 failed to meet the crossover deadline prior to adjournment.

    • Hawaii - HB 1359 failed to meet crossover deadline
    • Idaho
    • Louisiana
    • Michigan
    • South Dakota

    Fifteen states have non-photo identification laws.  This means that voters must show acceptable identification, which need not be a photo ID.  The specific requirements for non-photo identification vary by state, with some states being stricter than others.  (Those states follow, along with any legislative action taken this year to enact stricter identification requirements.)

    • Alaska - HB 162 is pending (carried over to the 2012 session)
    • Arizona
    • Arkansas - HB 1797 failed due to adjournment
    • Colorado - HB 1003 failed due to adjournment
    • Connecticut - HB 5231, SB 604, and SB 647 all failed to pass
    • Delaware - HB 199 and HB 200 are pending in the House
    • Kentucky
    • Missouri - SB 3 was vetoed, but SJR 2 will be on the November 2012 ballot
    • Montana - HB 152 was vetoed
    • North Dakota
    • Ohio - HB 159 passed in House, pending in Senate; HB 199 is pending House concurrence with Senate amendments
    • Oklahoma
    • Utah
    • Virginia - several bills failed due to adjournment
    • Washington

    The remaining 21 states (plus DC) have no voter identification requirement beyond the HAVA minimum, which requires voters to identify themselves either when they register or when they vote for the first time (if they registered by mail).  Again, those states follow, along with any legislative action taken this year to enact stricter identification requirements:

    • California - AB 663 and AB 945 failed in committee
    • District of Columbia
    • Illinois - HB 3058 and SB 2035 are pending (carried over to the 2012 session)
    • Iowa - HF 95 passed in House, pending in Senate (carried over to the 2012 session)
    • Maine - LD 199 passed in House, pending in Senate (carried over to the 2012 session)
    • Maryland - HB 288 and HB 701 failed due to adjournment
    • Massachusetts - multiple bills all pending in Joint Committee on Election Laws
    • Minnesota - SB 509 was vetoed
    • Mississippi - multiple bills all failed due to adjournment
    • Nebraska - LB 239 and LB 605 are pending (carried over to the 2012 session)
    • Nevada - SB 373 failed due to adjournment
    • New Hampshire - SB 129 was vetoed
    • New Jersey - A 1725 is pending in Assembly
    • New Mexico - HB 308, HB 577, and SB 363 all failed
    • New York - multiple bills are pending (carried over to the 2012 session)
    • North Carolina - HB 351 was vetoed
    • Oregon
    • Pennsylvania - HB 934 passed in House, pending in Senate
    • Rhode Island - SB 400 and HB 5680 are pending gubernatorial action
    • Vermont
    • West Virginia - HB 3219 failed due to adjournment
    • Wyoming

    From what I've been taught (by people who are familiar with combating election fraud), the rule of thumb when it comes to stealing elections is "10% of 10%."  That is, in order to steal an election - in any given municipality, county, district, or state - one only needs to steal ten percent of the voting precincts in question; and to do that, one only needs to steal ten percent of all the ballots cast per precinct in each of the precincts in question.  That's the darker, unspoken reason for identifying the "tossup" and "leaner" precincts in every county during the biennial civil war referred to as the partisan election campaign.

    When considering presidential campaigns, the Electoral College requires a slightly different view of the ten-of-ten principle.  The total votes available in the Electoral College is 538, which means - using the ten-of-ten principle - that one would need to steal 54 electoral votes worth of states.  This means a scenario requiring enough tossup or leaner states to add up to 54 EV.  According to Louis Jacobson, those states for the 2012 contest currently are:

    • Colorado (9 EV) - currently tossup
    • Florida (29 EV) - currently tossup
    • Iowa (6 EV) - currently tossup
    • Maine (4 EV) - leans Democrat
    • Michigan (16 EV) - currently tossup
    • Minnesota (10 EV) - currently tossup
    • Missouri (10 EV) - leans Republican
    • Nevada (6 EV) - currently tossup
    • New Hampshire (4 EV) - currently tossup
    • New Jersey (14 EV) - leans Democrat
    • New Mexico (5 EV) - currently tossup
    • North Carolina (15 EV) - leans Republican
    • Ohio (18 EV) - currently tossup
    • Pennsylvania (20 EV) - leans Democrat
    • Virginia (13 EV) - leans Republican
    • Wisconsin (10 EV) - currently tossup

    That's 189 electoral votes that are effectively up for grabs this early in the game.  If stronger voter photo identification laws start taking those states off the table (as Florida and Wisconsin already are, and as Iowa, Maine, New Jersey, Ohio, and Pennsylvania may yet be) as easy steal targets, then the dems are either going to have to find hardcore red states with ballot box vulnerability or (gasp) actually attempt to win on principle.  Nah, there'd still be 88 EV worth of competitive states with unprotected ballot boxes ripe for the picking.

    And that's where this becomes a Michigan issue, because right now, Michigan has voter identification laws that are only slightly more restrictive than those in the Help America Vote Act.  If a voter is in the poll book, but doesn't have ID, then all the voter has to do is sign a sworn affidavit stating that s/he is exactly who s/he says s/he is, and that s/he lives at the address specified in the poll book . . . and then the person is given a full ballot and proceeds to cast a vote just like any voter who has proper identification.  And somehow this is supposed to provide Michigan (along with Idaho, Hawaii, Louisiana, and South Dakota, which have similar laws) with greater ballot box integrity than the states which currently use only the minimum requirements of the HAVA.

    Ruth Johnson, in her campaign for Michigan Secretary of State, promised to advocate for laws that closed loopholes in voter identification requirements at the polls.  According to her campaign website, she's at least trying to make good on that promise, but when I checked Michigan Votes "Elections" category for bills initiated during 2011, nowhere among the 47 currently in the hopper did I notice even one moving Michigan into the strict-photo ID club (unless I've overlooked something).  When that legislative package is ready to go, Secretary Johnson, please permit me to recommend Senator Colbeck, Senator Robertson, Senator Hildenbrand, Representative Agema, Representative Hooker, Representative Cotter, and/or Representative Franz, with whom you have at least one endorsement in common, as potential sponsors for that legislation.

    Regardless, we're going to have to do something; because the liberal-socialist-progressive democrats are going to stop at nothing, including backdooring the Constitution (which will be the topic of a separate blog post), to steal an election that they clearly seem to believe that they cannot fairly win.  And the more opportunities for election theft that we can shut down, the better.

    < Gazette Highlights Red-Tape-Cutting Reform to Actually SIMPLIFY Health Care Process in Michigan | Politicizing The Green Debate >

    Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

    Display: Sort:
    I show (none / 0) (#1)
    by grannynanny on Fri Jul 08, 2011 at 11:03:24 AM EST
    my ID to vote at our polling place and I have NEVER seen any violations of voting rights when having to show ID.  In fact - I have to show my ID every time I go to the doctor.  I don't hear anyone hollaring about that.

    Display: Sort:


    Make a new account

    Tweet along with RightMichigan by
    following us on Twitter HERE!
    create account | faq | search