Democrats like to pretend voter fraud isn’t a problem — but it is. This video proves it.
Democrats like to pretend voter fraud isn’t a problem — but it is. This video proves it.
Study: Contrary to Activist Propaganda, Voter ID Laws Don’t Don’t Swing Elections, and Don’t Suppress Minority Votes
Nate Cohn writes:
…The study was of Texas, and it was conducted by Stephen Ansolabehere of Harvard. It found that 608,470 registered voters lack any kind of state or federal ID after using robust matching criteria. That figure seems quite similar to other studies about voter ID, and therefore the Brennan Center contends it validates less robust studies with similar figures.
But the Texas study does not refute my article; it bolsters it. The study showed that just 4.5 percent of the state’s active registered voters lacked photo identification. That’s less than half of the 9.4 percent who lacked photo identification in that Pennsylvania study.
Part of the reason for the smaller number of voters without identification was that the study considered federal ID, not just state-issued ID. The study found that 32 percent of the registered voters without a state identification had a federal ID, like a passport. Even if this figure would be lower in states farther from the border, it strongly suggests that any analysis without consideration of federal ID will substantially overstate the number of voters without identification.
There is one place where the Brennan Center makes a fair point, though I think it depends on a miscommunication on my part that’s worth clearing up.
In my original article, I wrote a paragraph that read: “Take Texas, a state with a particularly onerous voter ID law. If I register to vote as ‘Nate’ but my ID says ‘Nathan,’ I might be counted among the hundreds of thousands of registered voters without a photo ID. But I’ll be fine at the polling station on Election Day with a name that’s ‘substantially similar’ to the one on file.” The Brennan Center interprets this paragraph to mean that I would not be counted in the Texas study as lacking ID.
This was unclear. My point in invoking Texas was not to discuss Mr. Ansolabehere’s matching procedures, but to note that even a state with a stringent ID law, like Texas, would accept a name that’s “substantially similar” to the one on file. I was not disputing that there are states using these matching procedures, just trying to show the potential complications involving people who could be counted as without photo identification but could nevertheless vote in a state with a particularly strong voter ID law.
This quibble aside, the Brennan article is consistent with my own about the small chances for swinging election outcomes. Read the rest of this entry »
“Significantly, Judge Schroeder cited the testimony of DOJ’s own experts against it.”
From capitalisminstitute.org: Voter ID laws are a pretty simple concept that enjoy widespread support. Voter ID laws simply state that anyone showing up to vote at the polls must provide a valid ID of some sort, to prove that they are who they claim to be.
Voter ID laws help prevent and cut down on voter fraud, and help to protect the integrity of elections. Progressive Democrats abhor voter ID laws, and Attorney General Eric Holder has attacked such laws in multiple states, claiming they are racist and prevent minorities from voting.
Attorney General Eric Holder suffered a huge loss on Friday in his war on election integrity. A federal judge refused to issue a preliminary injunction against North Carolina’s omnibus election reform law that includes voter ID, as well as measures such as the elimination of same-day registration…
…Significantly, Judge Schroeder cited the testimony of DOJ’s own experts against it. This included one expert who admitted that black turnout in North Carolina is on par with that of whites, and another DOJ expert who acknowledged that the black registration rate is higher than that of whites. That makes it a bit difficult to argue that state officials have been discriminating against minority voters. Read the rest of this entry »
Iowa Refers 80 Cases of Voter Fraud to Prosecutors
Ignoring the fact that voter ID laws were declared constitutional in a 2006 Supreme Court decision written by John Paul Stevens, the Court’s then most liberal justice, Biden is continuing the fact-free assault on anti-voter fraud measures.
“…five people have pleaded guilty to voter fraud and 15 others are facing charges….”
When such laws aren’t “hateful” they are “unnecessary.” The Brennan Center for Justice says “voter fraud is essentially irrational” so it almost never happens. Voter fraud is so rare “you’re more likely to get hit by lightning than find a case of prosecutorial voter fraud,” insists Judith Browne-Dianis, co-director of the liberal Advancement Project.
Well, the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation disagrees. Not a state known for its hateful politics, Iowa’s DCI wrapped up its investigation this month and has referred more than 80 cases of voter fraud to county attorneys for possible prosecution. Since the investigation was initiated by GOP Secretary of State Matt Schultz a year and a half ago, five people have pleaded guilty to voter fraud and 15 others are facing charges. Read the rest of this entry »
Logan Churchwell reports: Early voting for the March Primary Election began today with Texas’ voter ID law enjoying full enforcement, despite U.S. Department of Justice objections in federal court. Just as Texans experienced in the 2013 Constitutional Election, voters must present an approved photo ID to cast a regular ballot at their polling place.
The Holder Justice Department filed a federal lawsuit against Texas in summer 2013 on the claim that voter ID was a violation of the Voting Right Act, as part of a wider national campaign to block election integrity reforms. On February 11, the DOJ requested the court consider postponing the September 2014 trial date – arguing they did not have ample time to analyze data among ethnic groups and, therefore, their effort would be “irreparably prejudiced” as a result. The DOJ was rejected on Friday.
Yep: Justice Department suing Texas over voter ID law
BY ERIKA JOHNSEN
Back in June, the Supreme Court struck down a big part of the Voting Rights Act as unconstitutional, ruling that Congress needs to identify places where racial discrimination at the voting booth is so endemic that it requires federal intervention to override a state’s sovereignty in conducting elections. The 1965 law originally required that states with a history of discrimination apply for DOJ permission or court approval before altering their voting laws, but the Justices threw out those 50-year-old definitions and essentially freed Texas from federal court supervision — and it didn’t take long for Attorney General Eric Holder to declare that he had no intention of abiding by the historical checks-and-balances norm supplied by the Supreme Court. Read the rest of this entry »
BY ASHE SCHOW
Voter-ID laws continue to get a lot of attention, and proponents of the law are being drowned out by opponents claiming the laws discriminate against certain voters.
Rather than getting IDs to the people who are supposedly disenfranchised, opponents spend their efforts trying to end the laws, even though polls consistently show overwhelming majorities of voters approve of the laws.
Below are just some of the examples of things you need to prove your identity for:
3. Opening a bank account
4. Apply for food stamps
5. Apply for welfare
Voter ID didn’t reduce turnout, but the IRS may have.
The 2012 election season was filled with angry cries of voter suppression,â€ almost all of them regarding attempts by states to require voter ID and otherwise improve ballot integrity. Bill Clinton warned that “there has never been, in my lifetime, since we got rid of the poll tax and all the other Jim Crow burdens on voting” the determined effort to limit the franchise that we see today.â€ Democratic-party chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said â€œphoto-ID laws, we think, are very similar to a poll tax.
All of this proved to be twaddle. An August 2012 Washington Post poll showed nearly two-thirds of African-Americans and Hispanics backing photo ID. The Census Bureau has found that the rate of voter turnout for blacks exceeded that of whites for the first time in the 2012 election.
But it now turns out there may have suppression of the vote after all. â€œIt looks like a lot of tea-party groups were less active or never got off the ground because of the IRS actions, Wisconsin governor Scott Walker told me. Sure seems like people were discouraged by it.
Indeed, several conservative groups I talked with said they were directly impacted by having their non-profit status delayed by either IRS inaction or burdensome and intrusive questioning. At least two donors told me they didn’t contribute to True the Vote, a group formed to combat voter fraud, because after three years of waiting the group still didn’t have its status granted at the time of the 2012 election. (While many of the targeted tea-party groups were seeking to become 501(c)(4)s, donations to which are not tax-deductible, True the Vote sought to become a 501(c)(3).) This week, True the Vote sued the IRS in federal court, asking a judge to enjoin the agency from targeting anyone in the future.
Cleta Mitchell, True the Vote’s lawyer, says we’ll never know just how much political activity was curtailed by the IRS targeting. She has one client who wanted to promote reading of the Constitution, but who didn’t even hear back from the IRS for three years – until last Monday, when the IRS informed this client that some questions would be sent.
“I was about to file with the IRS when other tea-party groups started to get harassed,” Pennsylvania activist Jennifer Stefano told Time magazine. “I remember checking with the IRS to see if they wanted the group [Facebook] page or my personal page, and they said ‘All of it.’”
The IRS claims that all of the delays and information demands were rooted in mere mismanagement and misjudgment, a stance that began to look even shakier yesterday when Lois Lerner, the director of the IRS’s exempt-organization division, took the Fifth Amendment before a House committee.