Green Room

I Thought Voter Fraud Didn’t Exist

posted at 3:42 am on October 1, 2012 by

Some on the political left have been rambling about how voter fraud isn’t an issue for months.  They say it’s a new poll tax.  It’ll disenfranchise voting, especially amongst those in the minority community who cannot obtain a government issued ID. Eugene Robinson of The Washington Post opined that “what did happen in 2008 was that African Americans, Hispanics and poor people — traditional Democratic Party constituencies — voted in unusually large numbers. And what happened in 2010 was that Republicans took control of more statehouses and set out to reshape the electorate and make it GOP-friendly.”  His column, which was published on September 24, claimed that:

Not coincidentally, this voter ID campaign has been particularly intense in swing states such as FloridaOhio and Pennsylvania. Invariably, advocates cloak the restrictive new measures in pious-sounding rhetoric about “the integrity of the voting process.” This sounds uncontroversial — who’s against integrity? — until you weigh the laws’ unconscionable costs against their undetectable benefits.

‘But you need an ID to do a lot of things, like board a plane,’ advocates say. Unlike commercial air travel, however, voting is a constitutionally protected right. To infringe or abridge that right — for no demonstrable reason — should be considered a crime against democracy.

[...]

Minorities, poor people and seniors are less likely than other Americans to have government-issued identification such as a driver’s license — and more likely, for various reasons, to have difficulty obtaining an acceptable ID. They might live far from the nearest motor vehicles department office, for example, and lack transportation. In the case of some older African Americans born in the South under Jim Crow segregation, they might not even have a proper birth certificate of the kind needed to obtain a driver’s license or state ID card.

For Hispanics, perhaps more important than voter ID laws are purges of the voter rolls — which are being conducted in some states, allegedly to make sure that non-citizens do not vote — and proof-of-citizenship requirements for voter registration.

What could be more innocent, right? But proponents of these measures know that some naturalized citizens, who have every right to vote, will see such challenges as intimidating. The Advancement Project claims that up to 10 million Hispanics could be deterred from registering or voting, and while this is a very high estimate — the assumption appears to be that Hispanics, absent the intimidation, would be much more likely to vote than other groups — it seems clear that there will be some impact on participation.

Oooo spooky – those damn Republicans are out to suppress voter turnout – or maintain the legitimacy and integrity of our elections.  However, that hasn’t stopped some members in the liberal media from trying to use this issue to slam the GOP as racist.

David G. Savage of the LA Times wrote back in July about an elderly Philadelphia woman:

 Viviette Applewhite, who cast “her first vote [was] for President Franklin D. Roosevelt.”*  and [sued] the Commonwealth over its new voter ID law.  At no point in his story, however, did he mention Ms. Applewhite may be eligible to vote by absentee ballot.”

“[T]he outcome of the lawsuit could affect not just the voting rights of several hundred thousand Pennsylvanians but also who wins the presidential election,” Savage melodramatically insists. Applewhite’s “ record of faithfully voting for Democrats will be more difficult to maintain, thanks to a strict voter identification law adopted this year by Pennsylvania’s Republican-controlled Legislature,” he added.

Applewhite is among more than 186,000 registered voters who lack a valid driver’s license in this heavily Democratic city. Many of them are minorities. And to vote in Pennsylvania in November, they will need to produce a government-issued ID or driver’s license. That could have national implications. Obama almost certainly needs to win in Pennsylvania to be reelected, and political analysts say the Democrat cannot win the state without piling up large margins in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, the two cities where the new voter ID rule would hit the hardest.

However, according to Gateway Pundit, 9,000 dead people are still on the rolls in Dallas County.  Missouri has become a center of attention since the Todd Akin fiasco and to add to the controversy – the elections boafrd cannot purge those dead people less than 60 days before an election.

Dallas County could have as many as more than 9,000 dead people registered as voters, but the county’s election supervisor says they cannot be removed until after the November election.

Federal law forbids changing the voter roll within 60 days of a federal election, a deadline that has already passed, said Election Supervisor Toni Pippins-Poole.

Pippins-Poole said the Texas secretary of state did not provide the list of possible deceased voters from Social Security records until late August.

The election office must send a letter to each name on the list to be sure person is not alive. Pippins-Poole said the state did not allow her office enough time to complete the process.

Dallas County Republican Party Chairman Wade Emmert said it creates an opportunity for voter fraud.

If you think 9,000 dead people on the rolls is insignificant enough to influence an election, just look at Florida’s results from 2000.  Furthermore, James O’ Keefe has been exceptional in exposing how easy it is to commit voter fraud.  Erika Johnsen posted on Hot Air’s main blog September 10 about Wendy Rosen – who withdrew as the Democratic candidate in Maryland’s 1st congressional district due to voter fraud.

Wendy Rosen, a small-business owner running as a Democrat for Maryland’s 1st Congressional district, quit the race today after her party reported to state officials that she is currently registered for, and has recently participated in, the elections of both Maryland and Florida. WaPo reports:

“Personal issues have made this the hardest decision that I have had to make,” Rosen said [in a statement.]

Rosen’s announcement came the same day the state Democratic party released a letter to state Attorney General Douglas Gansler and state prosecutors reporting the allegations against Rosen.

“The Maryland Democratic Party has discovered that Ms. Rosen has been registered to vote in both Florida and Maryland since at least 2006; that she in fact voted in the 2006 general election both in Florida and Maryland; and that she voted in the presidential preference primaries held in both Florida and Maryland in 2008,” wrote Yvette Lewis, the state party chair. “This information is based on an examination of the voter files from both states. We believe that this is a clear violation of Maryland law and urge the appropriate office to conduct a full investigation.”

Someone voting in two places at the same time – not a problem at all.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

But proponents of these measures know that some naturalized citizens, who have every right to vote, will see such challenges as intimidating.

LOL. Naturalized citizens have paperwork from the U.S. government that proves their citizenship. Why would they be “intimidated” by a form that asks them to confirm their U.S. citizenship? It’s easy enough for them to do, and it’s no more “intimidating” than it is for a citizen to show their I.D. when they’re entering a federal building, or boarding a plane — things that all of us routinely have to do.

I’m so tired of this “vote suppression” nonsense. It’s so blatantly phony. We all know that there are millions of illegal aliens living in the U.S., many of whom routinely cast illegal votes in our elections.

To infringe or abridge that right — for no demonstrable reason — should be considered a crime against democracy.

Yes, depriving a citizen of their right to vote should be a crime. And when my legal vote is cancelled out by the illegal vote of a non-citizen, that is an outrage. Unfortunately, it’s an outrage and a crime that the “progressive” left — and their handmaidens in the MSM — are all too happy to aid and abet.

AZCoyote on October 1, 2012 at 8:06 AM

I also find the idea that minorities, young people, and especially seniors don’t have ID.

Really? Seniors?

You mean the folks who got drafted into Vietnamand therefore to a man, their spouse, and their kids have a government issued military ID?

Oh wait. The Dems glorify draft dodgers, my error.

I guess none of these minorities drive, fly, or drink booze either.

I only wish there was an easy way to make a portmanteau with “ignorant” and “media” to label these scoundrels.

BKennedy on October 1, 2012 at 8:25 AM

And how much do you want to bet that the measurement of how many minorities don’t have a state-issued license took place in April?

Why April? Because 18-year-olds are mostly still in high school. And in their mother’s home, where adding a teenager to Mom’s car insurance can be prohibitively expensive. I was one of those eighteen-year-olds myself back in the day, and I didn’t get a license until I was 23 (but I got a state ID long before then). By November, many of these eighteen-year-olds will be moved out to their own addresses with their own insurance policies. And they will mostly have their own licenses by that point.

Sekhmet on October 1, 2012 at 8:39 AM

did the democrats replace ms. rosen on the ballot?

Dr. Demento on October 1, 2012 at 10:50 AM

If the ACORN types are so afraid that lack of an ID will hamper these poor unfortunate minorities, why not set up a program to help them get their ID so they can vote?

It’s almost if that argument were a smokescreen to cover the real reason to attack the law. . .

kenashimame on October 1, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Minorities, poor people and seniors are less likely than other Americans to have government-issued identification such as a driver’s license — and more likely, for various reasons, to have difficulty obtaining an acceptable ID. They might live far from the nearest motor vehicles department office, for example, and lack transportation.

I am so sick of hearing these arguments. How can anyone argue, with a straight face, that it is impossible for someone to get from their home to the nearest DMV? Do these people never leave their homes? Do they never have to go to the grocery store? How much more of a challenge is it to get to the DMV than to the grocery store? And if someone can’t even manage to go to the DMV, how do we expect them to ever hold down a job? Or are we past the point of expecting that?

This is such a blatant attempt to ensure that voter fraud continues that I can’t even believe we’re really having the argument.

Shump on October 1, 2012 at 12:52 PM

My original birth certificate was misplaced when my mom moved to Florida. I went online and ordered a certified copy.

All I needed was my DOB, parent’s names, and city of birth. And a credit card, although you could have paid cash if you actually showed up. I had the replacement within a week.

So, no, I don’t subscribe to the voter suppression/intimidation theory.

Maddie on October 1, 2012 at 12:59 PM

And if someone can’t even manage to go to the DMV, how do we expect them ever hold down a job to get to the polling place, in which case, what are we arguing about? Shump on October 1, 2012 at 12:52 PM

FIFY.

Maddie on October 1, 2012 at 1:01 PM

The left is now arguing voter fraud is miniscule and hasn’t affected a single outcome. Tell that to Al Franken.

Hard Right on October 1, 2012 at 1:11 PM

The funny thing is that Rosen will likely defend herself by demanding the state prove it was her who actually voted since no ID is required. The irony.

aniptofar on October 1, 2012 at 1:43 PM

LOL. Naturalized citizens have paperwork from the U.S. government that proves their citizenship.

AZCoyote on October 1, 2012 at 8:06 AM

I have 2 pieces, Citizenship certificate from the day I was sworn in and my USA passport. Even without passport I would have at least one.

And to rebut the liberal assertions for the so called lack of picture ID, I would really LOVE to know how those who don’t have a driver license bank, for example. They either have to have access to their bank accounts or have a picture ID to cash their welfare checks. No exceptions.

riddick on October 1, 2012 at 2:13 PM

And military vote is being suppressed, but the media doesn’t give a crap. Where’s the outrage there, leftists? And a side note to the GOP: Where the crap has the RNC been? The Dems are stealing the election right out from under our noses, and the fake polls will bolster their fraudulent vote.

idalily on October 1, 2012 at 7:59 PM

Some chicken$hit liberal maggot did a cartoon mocking the very idea of voter fraud in my homecity’s flagship newspaper, with the character “Jimmy Crow.” The little snotbag ought to be picketed by veterans of the Civil Rights movement, complete with media coverage.

MelonCollie on October 1, 2012 at 10:49 PM

I hope the Dallas county and other Texas Counties Election boards provide their Precinct chiefs a list of probable dead voters in each precinct so that if one of the deceased shows up to vote that they can “correct” the situation… and if for some reason that person does not have a picture id, then the vote can be contested. That is a procedure which has been in place for decades.

NTxOkie on October 2, 2012 at 3:12 AM

In summary:

A majority of people who make bad decisions about their life’s direction vote Democrat.

Explains the poor and Hollywood.

ProfShadow on October 2, 2012 at 7:30 AM

As Neal Boortz is fond of pointing out, NO WHERE in the Constitution is the right to vote mentioned. And even the vaunted 13th and 14th and 15th Amendments don’t mention that the right to vote is Constitutionally protected, they simply state that you can’t apply one standard to whites and another to blacks.

I haven’t seen a voter ID law yet that says only blacks have to have one.

SDN on October 2, 2012 at 8:50 AM

What could be more innocent, right? But proponents of these measures know that some naturalized citizens, who have every right to vote, will see such challenges as intimidating


Are you kidding me?!!!

First of all, if you are here LEGALLY then why would you be intimidated?

Secondly, if you are a naturalized citizen then you already have some form of identification!!! Even if you need to go get one that identifies your current address, you already have several forms of ID created as part of the naturalization process.

Third, though a more challenging measurable statistic, is that if you have gone through the naturalization process, which bears a monetary cost, you likely have some means of transportation (not that the excuse of “lack of transportation” that opponents use holds any water anyway).

Finally, if you have been so diligent to pursue and obtain citizenship it is because you want to have all privileges and responsibilities that come associated with it. Who in their right mind would be intimidated now that you finally can do, among other things, vote? If you don’t vote it is because you simply don’t care.

As a legal resident I ache at the fact that I cannot vote in this election and look forward to the day when I can take the Pledge of Allegiance, be able to call myself a Citizen, and have the privilege to vote in this great nation.

ptcamn on October 2, 2012 at 4:11 PM