Thursday, January 5, 2012

Voter FRAUD....what's the real downside of photo ID?

Before commenting to my title, leftists, please read this, it'll inform your comment.  Thanks.
This is from The Heritage Foundation's "Morning Bell":

"Last night's nail-biter in Iowa marked the beginning of election year 2012. And with Americans heading to the polls -- next in New Hampshire, then South Carolina and beyond -- they will hope to rely on the integrity of the election system to ensure that every legitimate vote counts and that fraud is not the deciding factor on the local, state or national level.

Unfortunately, despite all the technological advances in our modern democracy, voter fraud still occurs, and yet there is still resistance to one very simple tool that could help eradicate it -- voter ID. Some, like The New York Times, say that voting fraud is a myth, that "there is almost no voting fraud in America." But as Heritage senior legal fellow Hans von Spakovsky explains, voter fraud is all too common in America today:

The fraud denialists also must have missed the recent news coverage of the double voters in North Carolina and the fraudster in Tunica County, Miss. -- a member of the NAACP’s local executive committee -- who was sentenced in April to five years in prison for voting in the names of ten voters, including four who were deceased.

And the story of the former deputy chief of staff for Washington mayor Vincent Gray, who was forced to resign after news broke that she had voted illegally in the District of Columbia even though she was a Maryland resident. Perhaps they would like a copy of an order from a federal immigration court in Florida on a Cuban immigrant who came to the U.S. in April 2004 and promptly registered and voted in the November election.

Even former liberal Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens agrees. Stevens wrote in a 6-3 majority opinion upholding an Indiana voter ID law: "That flagrant examples of [voter] fraud...have been documented throughout this Nation's history by respected historians and journalists...demonstrate[s] that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election."

Given the incidence of voter fraud -- and the simplicity of requiring voters to present a valid ID in order to be able to vote -- it's not surprising that 70 percent of likely U.S. voters believe that voters "should be required to show photo identification such as a driver's license before being allowed to cast their ballot," according to a recent Rasmussen poll. Meanwhile, only 22 percent of Americans are opposed to the requirement.

Despite the fraud -- and the support for voter ID measures -- Attorney General Eric Holder intends to examine new state voter ID laws for potential racial bias. Von Spakovsky writes that the allegations of bias are baseless, and there is evidence to prove it. In Georgia, which enacted a photo ID law before the 2008 election, the number of African American voters increased after the new law went into effect. "According to Census Bureau surveys," von Spakovsky writes, "65 percent of the black voting-age population voted in the 2008 election, compared with only 54.4 percent in 2004, an increase of more than ten percentage points."  (Z: and, by the way, is this more 'soft bigotry of low expectations' toward Black Americans?  they can't get voter ID?  Why, they're too stupid? Of course not.  Why do people expect the worst from them? Ridiculous...and BIGOTED)

On top of all that, the number of people who don't already have a photo ID is incredibly small. An American University survey in Maryland, Indiana, and Mississippi found that less than one-half of 1 percent of registered voters lacked a government-issued ID, and a 2006 survey of more than 36,000 voters found that only "23 people in the entire sample--less than one-tenth of one percent of reported voters" were unable to vote because of an ID requirement. What about those who don't have photo IDs? Von Spakovsky notes that "every state that has passed a voter ID law has also ensured that the very small percentage of individuals who do not have a photo ID can easily obtain one for free if they cannot afford one."

The American people value the integrity of their elections, and they overwhelmingly support voter ID requirements to make sure that Election Day is as fair, honest, and legal as possible. Still, though, there is resistance and predictions of massive disenfranchisement if voter ID laws continue to be implemented. The evidence, however, proves otherwise." (end of article)

So, what is the downside of photo ID?  Who's disenfranchised?   Have at it...

Z...(thanks, Mustang)


Always On Watch said...

Attorney General Eric Holder intends to examine new state voter ID laws for potential racial bias.

How difficult is it to get a photo ID from the DMV?

Here in Virginia, we have to produce a birth certificate to prove our identity, at which point one gets a driver's license or a "walker's ID."

For some time now, we've had to show our driver's license or walker's ID at the polling places. In years past, before photo ID was enforced at the polls, all one had to do was recite one's full name and legal residential address.

Eric Holder is attempting to bring us Chicago Politics on a national basis: "Vote early, vote often."

Bob said...

AOW is correct. Plus, those who don't want voter IDs are uniformly ?Democrats, who wrote the book on election and voter fraud. Republicans have no doubt cheated, but Democrats have historically made cheating a regular feature in elections.

"Landslide" Lyndon Johnson was put into the Senate by massive voter fraud in Texas. In one county the deceased voted in alphabetical order.

J F Kennedy ascended to the Presidency in part because of the Chicago Democrat machine boss, Richard Daley, voting even more dead people. The zombie action was enough to push Illinois to the Democrats.

Voter fraud is part of the institutionalized corruption that is the Democrat Party.

beamish said...

I've changed my address several times in the last 10 years, and the Carnahan dynasty, I mean the Missouri Secretary of State always seems to lose my updated voter registration right at election time. So on Election Day, I always have to grab a Republican election judge or two and find the polling place where I'm supposed to vote. Last time (2010) my name was on the rolls at a polling place for a neighborhood I haven't lived in for a good six years and four elections prior. And I've voted in every Presidential, mid-term, and local election since 1988. Somehow an invalid address from 2002 popped up as where I was registered to vote in 2010, despite me filing changes and voting at different places in the elections that passed between. Despite me updating my registered address when I renewed my driver's license and vehicle registration. They know where to charge me property taxes, but not where I should vote?

This year will likely be no different. I just hope I don't have to drive 70 miles and across two county lines to vote again.

I don't think a photo ID is officially required in Missouri (Governor Segregationist vetoed it) but you'll need one if you're a Republican playing hide-and-seek with your polling place.

Z said... topic: They're showing now the film I thought was Come to the Stable..I was wrong, it's Tenth Avenue they didn't show Come to the Stable again this year.

Anonymous said...

IMO, there is no downside to photo ID —but then again, I’m not a zealot progressive who round up homeless people, transports them to voting precincts en masse, and encourages them to vote for democrats in exchange for a bottle of liquor and pack of cigarettes. Voter fraud does explain one thing, however: how it is possible to have someone like Kwame Kilpatrick elected to two terms as the mayor of Detroit.

Silverfiddle said...

There is no downside, which is why the lefties are so agitated.

The more wrong they are on an issues, the louder and more hysterical they become, hence the especially tendentious histrionics pouring out of their lying gobs.

Fredd said...

Only the lowlifes among our population have no ID.

Do we want them involved in our elections? Lowlifes include but are not limited to: illegal aliens, criminals, mental retards and the general scuz of society.

Voter ID requirements are a good thing for the country. To argue otherwise reflects extremely poorly on your patriotism.

FairWitness said...

It's simple, Eric Holder wants to stop the requirement for Voter ID because Obama and some others want to continue to use fraud to increase their votes. They don't care about truth or justice or fairness - they want power any way they can get it.

Opus #6 said...

We are all enfranchised if our vote is not nullified by fraud.

Voter ID sounds good to me.

Z said...

Mustang "encourages to vote"? How about the two cases I saw among the only 8 people I saw vote?
One, a lovely black girl on a cell phone jumping out of her car, looking at my precinct, talking to whoever she was talking to, and then announcing "I don't live nearby where I'm registered but I was on business here in this area .. .can I vote HERE?" "Oh, sure," they said "just sign the provisional book" (as if anybody checks later)
She got on the cell phone and off she went to the next vote, I imagine.

A very old woman was in a wheel chair ( I vote at a care facility in their dining rm) and could barely hold her pooor head up, obviously not in control, and the black woman wheeling her announced SHE was going to vote for her. "No problem!" :-)

Not to mention my friend who worked in the Black area of LA for 35 years, for an eye doc, who told me every year they'd hear "Oh, yes, I voted...I called the young people when I got my absentee ballot they showed me how to order, and they filled it All OUT!"

This is thirty years' worth of fraud...who knows what else is going on? These are first hand experiences.

Oh! I forgot another...I was waiting for neighbors to get out of their booths and heard a young man approach the table and say he'd moved and they didn't have him in the book...."SURE you can vote, just sign the provisional book when you do!"
I said to the voting worker "But, how do you know he's registered, etc.?"
The guy said "DOn't you want everyone to vote?"
I said "Not if they're not legally voting." I got SUCH a look from him.......

This is happening they say "Vote Early and Vote OFTEN!"


I'll be back later and respond to your excellent comments.

Let's see when the libs arrive to comment while ignoring the stats in the article. Or maybe they won't because who can argue this article?

Anonymous said...

Hello, Z,

Thanks for the movie information. Tenth Avenue Angel is a cute little Margaret O'Brien vehicle, but it's not like Come to the Stable.

I just learned that Irving Berlin forced MGM to put a blackout on Annie Get Your Gun, because of some grudge he had with someone -- not in the cast. I'm sure that helped ruin the career of Betty Hutton who was great in the part.

Hollywood Politics are probably even nastier and dirtier than National Politics. Too bad, because Hollywood has given us so much wholesome delight in years past it's hard not to love it, despite it's once-covert-now-flamboyant devotion to Marxism.

I'd love to find out why Come to the Stable hasn't been shown since I first saw it as a small child when it first came out. Probably because it identifies strongly with Christianity in a sweet intimate way the big epics like Quo Vadis, Ben Hur, The Ten Commandments and The greatest Story Ever Told never did, but who knows?

~ FT

Anonymous said...

We must produce either a driver's license or, as AOW calls it, a Walker's ID in order to vote where I live. It's been that way for at least 14 years -- all the time I've lived here -- and probably before.

One thing has changed, however. We used to be able to vote in any precinct in town, as long as we ere registered in advance. As of 2008, we have to go to a specifically assigned polling place. NOT a problem!

A couple of leftists in my acquaintance did not exactly engage in voter fraud, but they proudly and loudly made it their business at every election to go into the " less desirable" parts of town and round up derelicts, drunks, and as many welfare recipients and poor blacks as they could find, get them registered and later escort them to the polling places to ensure Heaven-knows-how-many votes for Democrats -- ALWAYS for Democrats.

I'm sure light bribery to "get out the vote" was used frequently -- the promise of a bottle of liquor for the drunks, and twenty bucks for the down-and-outs. These leftists -- both of whom happened to have come here from Chicago -- and both of whom happened to have been Jewish -- and rich! -- made a holy show of engaging in this practice.

They felt it was their "Civic Duty," because "democracy" isn't supposed to include ALL the people. Rah! Rah! Rah!

It's not so much about "cheating" as about the forceful expression of a peculiar mindset distinctly at odds with what-used-to-be-considered "normal" American behavior. It really is a CULTURAL thing -- this feeling that one has a bounden duty to INTERFERE and INTERVENE aggressively on behalf of people perceived as "downtrodden."

On the surface it sounds so noble, but the practice has done great harm.

In my never humble opinion the ignorant, mindless, illiterate and obviously "out-of-control" among us should NOT be voting because some "interested" political partisan led them to the polls and told them where to put their "mark."

Do they let the certifiably insane vote?

If not, I'll bet the Democrats would eagerly lobby to get their names n the rolls.

This is what happens when it become all about winning and not about simple justice.

In the minds of radical extremist of any sort the ends always justify the means.

~ FreeThinke

Anonymous said...

Pardon me.

The following sentence should have read:

They felt it was their "Civic Duty," because "democracy" IS supposed to include ALL the people.


~ FT

beamish said...

Back in the good ol' days, a fellow had to be drugged, intoxicated, and beat with chains to get him to commit voter fraud for Democrats.

Now all you have to do is promise someone they'll get drugs and booze and they'll vote for Democrats as much as you want them to.

My how times have changed.

net observer said...

probably not a bad idea overall. but it should be a very low barrier. citizens are citizens ultimately. establishing criteria for "legitimacy" is tricky. doesn't take much for a decent, smart person to end up homeless, and it doesn't take much for a fool to achieve social status.

ergo, i probably wouldn't not place "retards" in the "lowlife" category. but that's the kind of disagreement that makes this a tricky issue.

Fredd said...

Net Observer:

You claim 'doesn't take much for a decent, smart person to end up homeless...' is without merit.

Decent, smart people don't end up homeless. They see it coming and take steps to prevent that from happening to themselves. Like changing their life styles that may land them in the gutter, mending bridges with their estranged loved ones with whom they can stay until they get back on their feet, and planning and foresight are all part of being decent and smart.

You can't provide me one example of a decent, smart homeless person. Not one. They are all lowlifes from the get go, not decent smart people.

Lowlifes: we don't want any of them involved in our electoral process. No ID, no vote.

And if we did it like the Founding Fathers did it, you'd have to provide a deed to some real estate with your name on it or you didn't get to vote. I'd go back to those days in a heart beat.

Z said...

net, why can't a homeless person have an ID to vote?

Fredd,as an article I'm posting tonight says, we're getting to the point that those decent people with deeds are supporting all others to the point where the decent people are giving in and saying "why should I earn more?" That's a very dangerous situation, one that's happened so much in Socialism and why it hasn't worked...yet American liberals plod on with hopes we'll do socialism "right"'s unbelievable, but it's what school indoctrination has produced.
Those with any money are the ones who the voting really affects; their taxes, their love of country, their families...those who live off of them need to make the case for why they should vote.
I"m not saying the poor shouldn't vote; absolutely NOT...I"m saying those who we know enough about the system but who are paid to vote, brought in on buses and told who to vote FOR..that has to stop.

Isn't it sad? We had an America for years where people saw voting as a privilege and would never commit voter fraud in our country of ALL countries... to not trust the vote here is something I believe is taking its toll on the morale of our people.

I can't tell you how many people tell me they think Obama will win, but only illegally. how sad.

net observer said...


We couldn't possibly disagree more. At one point in my own life, the only reason I wasn't "technically" homeless was due to caring family and friends -- who could afford to help (which is key).

And not to brag, but I was a lot smarter and considerably more decent than a lot of people who owned property at the time.

Anybody can win a lotto. Anybody can lose a job. Anybody can choose indecency as a means to achieve (Ask Bernie Madoff). Anybody can be caught flat-footed with a devastating illness.

My point is that some events are very much out of our control as individuals. If you don't have a sufficient support system already in place, bad luck can be a lot more than a temporary inconvenience; it can turn your life upside down.

Would you prefer a death-dealing drug dealer, who has heretofore evaded the law, waltzing into a poll booth, voting for a candidate you despise? Or a fair-minded, down-on-his-luck, low-skilled homeless guy, voting for your candidate of choice?

Believe it or not, that's not a far-fetched scenario. A lot of drug dealers lean left and lot of down-on-their-luck homeless people hold conservative, "rugged individual" values.

net observer said...

Z, I didn't mean to suggest that a homeless person couldn't have "some" kind of an ID. But when I hear the term "ID", I think of an address being attached to it.

If the problem is fraud, and the solution is an ID card, will an ID card with no address associated with it work? I don't know.

Fredd said...


You make my point for me.

You avoided homelessness because you had a support system in place, which all decent and smart people do.

Lowlifes do not. .

And neither of us can provide data as to how drug dealers and down on your luck folk would vote. Pure speculation. I would speculate that drug dealers don't vote at all: too busy dealing drugs, and the don't pay taxes anyway, so politics have no meaning to them anyway.

I suspect down on your luck folk would vote for free government cheese every time.

net observer said...

speculation, indeed. "pure" speculation? eh, maybe. but it would make for interesting research. kinda hard for me to imagine coc dealer voting for santorum or bachmann.

in the 80s/90s, i knew a few smart-to-brilliant and decent persons who were homeless for a short time. (not hard to find in the entertainment biz) an aspect of conservatism is a determination to handle your own problems, even if you're homeless and dirt poor. and these guys were like that.

i think even hannity talked about living in his car before his life turned around.

and btw, my support system was not my creation. not all have caring, able, responsible family.

Anonymous said...

"less desirable" parts of town and round up derelicts, drunks, and as many welfare recipients..."

Like Fredd said...I've never had any doubt that the demrat party was and is a "gang" of lowlifes, bums, idiots, the mentally challenged, commies, socialists, parasites and grifters.

The Mafia has more honor and class than a party of dem-o-raats. Look no further than "libdude-tard" for proof.

Anonymous said...

"I think of an address being attached to it..."

Why can't it just have a picture of the person who presents it as proof that he / she is who is depicted on the ID card?

Z said...

Or some kind of HOMELESS identification...some legal stipulation?
this is a workable problem and we need not emphasize this; we need to concentrate on why the Left insists that no ID cards be used.

Could it have anything to do with illegal voters?

And then we have the Right so worried about BIG BROTHER and "No ID CARDS" which is, in my opinion, just a little nuts. Voting is sacrosanct (or was) and we need to have ONE method of voting, not various methods from state to state, not hanging chad-probable, nothing but ONE PERSON-ONE VOTE.

Kid said...

My Mom never had a driver's license, but she did have a photo ID which was easy peasy to get. No reason anyone couldn't get one.

This is an unnatural advantage to blacks and democrats, as usual.

Course, I don't think a person should be allowed to vote unless the household they live in paid either net income taxes or property taxes.

Anonymous said...

"I don't think a person should be allowed to vote unless the household they live in paid either net income taxes or property taxes..."


Anonymous said...

Funny how the GOP candidate in Iowa fought AGAINST requiring ID for the Caucus. All they did was sign in.

There has never been any evidence of significant voter fraud in any election. Well except when the GOP tries to suppress the voters by requiring IDs, no longer allowing student IDs, caging, sending out bogus flyer with incorrect dates or warning them they can be arrested if they show up, closing down polling booths in poorer districts or removing voting machines to create long lines.

Get the facts for a chenge:

Even GOP politicians agree:

"PA GOPer Admits There’s No Evidence That Voter ID Laws Are Needed, But He’s Ramming One Through Anyway"

Z said... sound like you're describing the Democrats in the Houston primaries...Gloria Allred and other Democrats said Obama precinct people were telling people to go home if they weren't voting for Obama. There's actually a documentary (made by a Democrat, by the way) talking about Democrat fraud, but I can't blame you for believing what you want to believe.
I have videos all over the blog with them testifying to that if you'd like to check.

I knew somebody from the left would comment without reading the article, I even warned about it in the post! The Left never lets us down...except in running the country :-(

KP said...

We might ask ourselves: How can both sides be correct? My view: there is truth on both sides. Perhaps the solution lies in being sure we don't disenfranchise voters while ensuring we protect every legal vote from an illegal vote.

Defending one argument without fully addressing the other misses the point. Just saying “get an ID” is wrong. Just saying “there is no voter fraud” is wrong. They are the same argument and both contend that there is voter fraud.

net observer said...

Everything you and Imp are suggesting sounds fair -- I think.

My gut tells me there are more than enough tax-paying, home-owning anti-intellectual voters that can offset all the drunks and derelicts coerced into voter fraud. Nonetheless, I'm in favor of eliminating everybody's excuse for losing in November. Regardless of who wins, I want a blowout. Let's remove all doubts.

Otherwise I'll have to hear four years of "they" (whoever that is) "stole the election".

Z said...

KP, you make some good points but even with THIS media, the stats who a lot more fraud on the Left...even Gloria Allred's on record whining about the Obama workers in the '08 primaries threatening people to go home if they weren't voting for him. A lifelong Dem also did a whole documentary showing Dem fraud..she was shocked and is too good an American to let it go.
But, these things go nowhere in the atmosphere of this media.
Do I think NO Republicans have wanted to push the votes their way and cooked books? of course not.

net...I'm with you. If I ever hear HANGING CHAD or any extrapolation of that again, it'll be WAY too soon :-)
My only consolation was I was living in Paris for it and only got the information on the internet and CNN International!

KP said...

Z: I agree, history appears to support greater (even if little // differnt from insignificant) voter fraud on the Dem side.

Having said that, historically assigning most of the blame to one party is complicated. The terrain is constantly shifting. We could use racism as an example. Stuff crosses party lines.

Best to address both sides of the arguement and ensure trust in our process.

Dave Miller said...

Net, how would you define blowout? 10 million votes? 20 million? 5%? 10%?

Reagan won in 1980 with a vote margin of less than Obama's margin in 2008. Yet his was considered a blowout, and Obama's somewhat close.

Now his 1984 victory over Mondale... that was a blowout...

BB-Idaho said...

Well, we have the technology to
implant every US citizen with a
forehead microchip with their
chromosomal DNA digitally embedded.
Perhaps that would satisfy those
who worry about voters?

Anonymous said...

"Just saying “get an ID” is wrong."


You ought to know by now I regard you as an affable, fair-minded, intelligent fellow, but how could you possibly defend an assertion like that?

What arguments do you have AGAINST requiring an official photo ID at the polls? I can't see any, myself.

I make a post last night to this effect, but must have stated my position a little too vehemently, because much to my surprise the post was removed without a trace sometime between now and then.

But seriously, I'd love to hear what you might have to say in defense of allowing people to use the honor System in this highly factionalized, thoroughly dishonorable society?


~ FreeThinke

net observer said...


i'm mostly thinking electorally. like 40 states to 10 states.

if obama lost that badly, "wholesale rejection" would be a fair interpretation. and the same goes for the other side. if the gop lost that badly, despite 8% employment, excuses like "liberal media" would not wash.

i love presidential elections. it's the only true barometer of the american mindset. soemtimes we need to know exactly what that is speculation makes me dizzy =)

Average American said...

Personally, I don't think I would mind being required to put my fingerprints on my ballot and have my prints on file, which they are already anyway. Now THAT would really give them something to bitch about! Come to think of it, many of the group that is supposedly disenfranchised by a photo ID also already have their prints on file. I know--what a RACIST remark that was! NO APOLOGIES offered!! As you know Z, I call 'em like I see 'em!

Average American said...

Oh, and to avoid any confusion, my prints are in the system because I was in the Army, I have worked in nuclear plants, and I have worked for the Census Bureau (I may blog about that experiance someday)!!

Z said...

BB...are you kidding?
You go from hearing from us conservatives saying things like "wouldn't you think responsible voters could get a photo ID?" to "get the microchipped?"

WHY can't Americans be left to their own devices? Have we become that low?

BB-Idaho said...

Yes, Z, I'm kidding. A penchant
for logical reductio ad adsurdum ..gets me in trouble with the Mrs. a lot...

Z said... problem, but that is kind of the Democrat way of doing things.......make a LAW! Install a CHIP! Don't rely on common sense, Let's face it. (heh)
Your wife doesn't happen to be a Republican, is she?

BB-Idaho said...

No, Z, my wife doesn't happen to be a Republican. Reminds of that
happy couple Mary Matalin and James Carville..Mary noted they
keep sharp objects locked out of the way...:) But, they are quite an intriguing pair, huh?

KP said...

FT: << You ought to know by now I regard you as an affable, fair-minded, intelligent fellow, but how could you possibly defend an assertion like that?

What arguments do you have AGAINST requiring an official photo ID at the polls? I can't see any, myself. >>

Thanks FT. I see 'almost' no problem with telling voters to get an ID. I have supported this long before it became a popular issue. My point, many on the left believe it is an issue. Or, say so out of political motivations.

FOR THAT REASON, solutions should be inclusive to the point there is no reasonable arguement. My 82 year old mom living under skilled nursing care needs to have a way to get ID. Let alone vote! In fairness, I want to help those who honestly disagree find a way to see the light. The rest: cheaters will be cheaters.

Liberalmann said...

Funny how the GOP fought against voter restrictions in the Iowa Caucasus and the upcoming NH primary.

No ID needed, same day registration, paper ballots, hand counting of ballots. All the thing they are trying to ban in a dozen states or more. Hypocrites.

Liberalmann said...

Fredd's comments represent the status quo of the loony right.