Who Stole the Election?

When Charles Webster was a member of the Maine House during the 1980s and 1990s, he and his Republican colleagues routinely proposed bills that would create restrictive voting laws -- or, as Webster sees it, legislation to tamp down on the rampant threat of voter fraud. "Every year we tried to solve this problem," he says, "and it was always a partisan vote," with Democrats supporting laws intended to increase turnout. As a result, Webster says, "We have one of the most loosey-goosey, lax election laws in the country."

Others would call Maine's voting laws a striking success. Most states struggle to get citizens to the polls; national turnout for a presidential election hasn't topped 60 percent since 1968, and turnout for midterm elections hovers in the 30s. That puts the United States far below the participation level in other Western democracies. Yet for the past four decades, Maine has stood apart. With an array of regulations that encourage voting -- the state has allowed voters to register on Election Day since 1973 -- Maine consistently places among the top five states for turnout. Seventy-two percent of the eligible population voted in 2008 when Barack Obama carried the state.

Republicans like Webster, who now chairs the state GOP, argue that too many people are voting in the state -- at least, too many illegal immigrants, out-of-state college students, and people who live in hotels. "What I don't want is somebody coming in stealing elections who doesn't live in the town," Webster says.

The political winds shifted Webster's way after the 2010 elections -- not just in Maine but across the country. Maine was one of 11 states where Republican majorities won control over both legislatures. This was the first time in four decades that Democrats had been out of power in the state, and the new Republican majority acted fast. After trying and failing to pass a voter -- identification law, they succeeded in repealing same-day voter registration. Republican Governor Paul LePage signed the bill in June.

The push against voting rights in Maine is just one example of the most direct assault on ballot access since the Jim Crow era. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), the influential corporate-funded group that writes model bills for Republican state legislators, has pushed Republicans across the country to impose new restrictions on voting and to overturn progressive laws like Maine's. "I don't want everybody to vote," ALEC co-founder Paul Weyrich said three decades ago. "As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down."

Since the Voting Rights Act of 1965, states have passed a steady stream of reforms to make it easier for people to vote. Now Republicans are pushing to make voting more difficult. "This is a hard-fought privilege," one Florida state senator said earlier this year. "This is something people die for. You want to make it convenient?"

The most headline-grabbing effort has been the creation of laws requiring voters to have photo identification at the polls. Five states -- Texas, South Carolina, Wisconsin, Tennessee, and Kansas -- have enacted strict photo-ID laws since the beginning of the year. Democrats argue that these laws have clear political motivations. Studies indicate that the groups most likely to vote Democratic -- the young, elderly, poor, mobile, and minorities -- are the ones whose members tend to lack a photo ID. The rules are often configured specifically to favor the Republican base at the expense of excluding likely Democrats. In Texas, for example, showing a military ID or a concealed-gun license will get you a ballot, but a college ID won't. As many as one in four African Americans lack the identification these states now require, leading Georgia Congressman John Lewis to call the laws "poll taxes by another name." (Under the Voting Rights Act, voter-ID laws in Texas and South Carolina must be approved by the Department of Justice because of those states' history of minority-voter suppression. At press time, the department had not yet ruled.)

But as stifling as voter-ID laws might be, a plethora of manipulations to voter-access laws pose an even larger threat. Numerous states recently have cut back on early voting, which had made it much easier for the working poor -- people who often can't get off work on Election Day -- to cast a ballot. In 2008, around 40 million Americans took advantage of early voting. That number will almost surely be lower in 2012, thanks to Republican efforts in states like Ohio. Thirty percent of Ohio's ballots in the last presidential election were cast by early or absentee voters. In March, though, the Republican -- controlled legislature reduced the state's 35-day window of early voting to 24 days of mail-in voting and just 11 days of in-person early voting. Florida also shortened its early-voting window and made things even trickier for voting-rights advocates by rewriting state laws to impose steep fines on voter-registration organizations if registration forms contain even minor mistakes. The League of Women Voters, the group at the forefront of registering voters across the country, shuttered its Florida voter-registration operation as a result.

Florida is also one of a handful of states that have rolled back voting rights for former felons. In Iowa, Governor Tom Vilsack, a Democrat, had signed an executive order in 2005 granting voting rights to felons as soon as they left prison. On his first day in office this year, Republican Governor Terry Branstad rescinded that order, removing 100,000 voters from the rolls with a stroke of his pen.

Republicans have pushed these new restrictions under the pretense of reducing voter fraud. "Protecting the integrity of our elections is central to ensuring our government has the full faith and confidence of the citizens it represents," Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker said after he signed a photo-ID law. "Requiring photo identification to vote will go a long way to eliminate the threat of voter fraud. If you need an ID to buy cold medicine, it's reasonable to require it to vote." But there is scant evidence of voter fraud in any state. The Brennan Center for Justice concluded in a 2007 study that fraud was so "exceedingly rare" that a voter is more likely to be struck by lightning than to cast a fraudulent ballot. "It's a red herring," says Eric Marshall of the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights. "It's a reason for them to pass restrictive legislation and limit access to the ballot box."

That's certainly been the case in Maine. When House Speaker Robert Nutting first put the repeal of same-day registration on the table this year, he argued that the measure was intended to ease the burden on county clerks overwhelmed by the number of first-time voters showing up on Election Day. When county clerks testified against that section of the bill, saying same-day registrants did not overwhelm them, the Republicans were left to rail against the threat of fraudulent voting. The only problem: No such threat exists in Maine. Only two successful prosecutions of voter fraud have occurred in the 38 years since same-day registration became the law.

Webster, the state party chair, makes no bones about the political reasons for new voting restrictions. He calls the groups that support same-day registration the "welfare coalition": "It's the give-me groups. It's the groups that want government spending." Webster has been equally explicit in his effort to prevent college students from voting in Maine -- though the U.S. Supreme Court's 1979 ruling in Symm v. U.S. clearly established that college students could register in their school's district. Webster combed through voting rolls earlier this year and published a list of 206 out-of-state students he believed may have committed voter fraud; the secretary of state, a Republican, opened an investigation. Yet after two months of digging into the allegations, the secretary's office found that none of the college students voted improperly.

At first blush, same-day registration might seem like a small-bore issue that wouldn't affect all that many potential voters. But 60,000 Mainers -- of 750,000 total voters -- took advantage of the regulation during the 2008 election, and 20,000 did so during the 2010 midterms. "Same-day registration is one of the most important measures that states can introduce to improve voter turnout," says Ann Luther of the Maine chapter of the League of Women Voters. Indeed, the nine states with same-day registration have, on average, 7 percent higher turnout than the states without those rules. That's particularly useful for younger voters. "When we dig into why, the answer is fairly straightforward," says Heather Smith, president of Rock the Vote. "They're new to the process, and they're highly mobile."

Just as African Americans are disproportionately affected by voter-ID laws, overturning same-day registration laws has a dampening effect on a particular class of people. For people who own their own home, the ability to register on Election Day is a minor concern; once you've registered, you should be set for decades. It's the mobile groups of society -- the young, the elderly, and the poor -- who need as many opportunities as possible to get themselves onto voting rolls. Renters are more likely to move in the time between elections. For the working poor, adding an extra step that requires advanced planning will only further reduce turnout -- especially among those most likely to vote Democratic. "The people who tend to be harmed by further restrictions on getting to the polls are the people who are on the margins anyway," says Justin Levitt, a professor at Loyola Law School. "Most voters see these new re-strictions as minor hassles that they can easily overcome. But that leaves a substantial minority -- upwards of millions of people -- for whom what seems like minor hassles turns out to be a pretty big deal."

Mainers are fighting back against the repeal of same-day registration. Protect Maine Votes, an organization made up of 18 voting-rights groups, gathered more than 70,000 signatures in less than four weeks to get a referendum on this November's ballot to overturn the new law. While Protect Maine Votes is urging voters to continue the state's history of open elections, Republicans are relying on the fear of stolen elections. "In the end, the issue will be: Do people believe our system is free of fraud, or do they believe it's got fraud?" Webster says. "If they believe it's free of fraud, then they'll keep the law."

While the referendum's organizers say they're confident that Maine voters will support same-day registration, they worry about what happens to voter participation in future elections if the referendum fails. "I don't know how far it will drop the first year," says David Farmer, communications director for Protect Maine Votes, "but I absolutely believe that the [type of] people who registered in the last two elections will go and try to vote and not be allowed."

The pushback against restrictive voting laws is picking up some steam outside of Maine. In early September, Democrats on a Senate Judiciary subcommittee held a "Barriers to the Ballot" hearing. National groups like Rock the Vote have also begun to raise awareness about the impact of these new regulations. "It appears some of these politicians are more interested in deciding who the electorate is than in letting the electorate decide who represents them," Smith says. "And that, to me, is something worth standing up against."


Why is it that democrats are the only ones that are too stupid to figure out how to register or what day to vote on or where their polling place is. If they really care about voting, they'll register at their new address. Polls in most states are open from very early in the morning untill 8 or sometimes 9 at night. They can go before or after work if they really cared about voting. We need IDs to get around every day from driving to buying cold medine or liquor so I can't see how that's such a burden. Somehow republicans never seem to have a problem with these things.

Why not make state ID cards free for those who do not have a driver's license?  That way, no one has an excuse not to have some form of ID.  I know these same "disenfranchised" voters need ID to purchase Tobacco, Alcohol and to rent movies.  I have no problem with showing ID at the polls.  As a matter of fact, I wish California would require it.  I would like to make sure my vote is casted by ME instead of someone pointing to my name on the rolls that the voting clerk looks at when I say who I am.

Regardless of how many were prosecuted, the problem is real and college students are a large part of it.  Many (according to some that I know) vote both at home and at school, whether in the same or different states.  Don't be fooled, there are plenty of opportunities even WITH photo ID and no same-day registration.  Since (and where) I have been voting there has been a gubernatorial and a senatorial race with obvious fraud (never prosecuted)  with the winner of the former receiving more votes in multiple precincts than registered voters.

I think it is a shame the Republicans are trying to stop a key Democrat constituency from voting...The Dead!

Just think about it!  If someone has to prove who they are, they can't go from precinct to precinct and sign in for some dead guy.

How utterly unfair!

Oh the horror!  Can you imagine only 24 days to vote by mail, or 11 days to drop by the polls and vote in person?  What is the world coming to?  And requiring an ID or DL?  You have to have one to drive, buy a beer, get into a disco, board a plan, or buy a cigarette, but maintaining the integrity of our entire election system isn't reason enough to ask for a simple ID.  As for student IDs?  Over 700,000 foreign students attend U.S. Universities every years.  They aren't elegible to vote, but if all you need is a student ID they could.  Funny how the left never mentions that.  Face it folks voting in our nation is easy.  Any eligible citizen in the U.S. that wants to vote won't have any problem in any state.  The only reason the left wants it to be even easier is because they think the 12-20 million illegal aliens in the country favor them and they want to get them to the polls to vote illegaly.  Its that simple!

Requiring personal identification in order to vote is in no way an unreasonable restriction to voting.  As has been said, you need ID to engage in basically any other function of society.  Ensuring the sanctity of one person/one vote should be paramount.
If, however, your federal income tax rate  is zero or even less than zero I believe you should have no access to federal elections.  It is immoral to use the facade of democracy to engage in plunder of fellow citizens.  To quote VP Biden, it's time for EVERYONE to "get some skin in the game." Participation in our republican form of government demands more than showing up from time to time in order to vote yourself more largess at the public trough.  Being a productive member of society is as important an aspect of citizenry as exercising voting privileges.

Oh come on with the "assault on voting rights" garbage. You HAVE to have an ID to do the most minor things in this country - like apply for gov't benefits,buy alcohol, cigarettes, cash a check, open a bank account,rent a car, rent furniture, buy a plane ticket and the list goes on and on and on. Now all of the sudden it's "too burdensome" to show your ID to vote. This is the most asinine argument i have ever hear.

"It’s the mobile groups of society—the young, the elderly, and the poor—who need as many opportunities as possible to get themselves onto voting rolls. Renters are more likely to move in the time between elections."

I have moved many times and voting has never been a problem.  Then again, I actually take it seriously and don't expect columnists to make excuses.

"The widespread, organized and systematic corruption of the voting process revealed by the author of "Injustice" is on a scale that can swing not only local but national elections, including the 2012 elections. The Department of Justice under Attorney General Eric Holder has not only turned a blind eye to blatant evidence of voter fraud, it has actively suppressed those U.S. Attorneys in its own ranks who have tried to stop that fraud."

Dr. Thomas Sowell RCP 10/11/2011


Requiring photo id isn't an imposition.....prove who you are.....and that you have the right to vote......

If you can't prove it.....you don't vote. It really is that simple.

No proof of fraud? Been to illinois lately? Taken a look at the rolls?

The laws to take someone off the rolls are atrocious.....can't unless a death announcement/certificate is produced (if the person didn't die in the county, almost impossible up get them off the rolls.) ......that is why so many dead people vote in illinois.....

Face it....there is rampant voter fraud with motor/voter laws...you won't find fraud if you don't bother looking for it.

Total BS.

 If you can't prove who you are when you register you don't get to vote.  As to Maine and their registration practices being hailed as a success they probably are but the same practices would not work in: Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, Atlanta, LA, NYC, etc.

The Dem precinct workers in these cities are already over-burdened with voting the graveyards plus running the shuttle vans to the polling places and passing out the box lunches and "street money".

It would be chaos if they had to run an election day registration scam too.

The author's construct that a college photo ID is the same as a military ID or a CCW photo ID is comparing apples and oranges. To get a military ID one has to raise their right hand and swear to defend the Constitution. To get a CCW ID, one has to apply and be granted a CCW license after an extensive background check with other qualifying criteria. These licenses are not issued willy nilly. How does one get a college photo ID? Be accepted by the college and pay the tuition. And as we all know, in Texas, illegal aliens get their tuition paid for by the taxpayers of Texas. There is a big difference between the military and CCW photo ID's and a college photo ID.

Since the author is happy to lay the "blame" for requiring reasonable voting eligibility requirements on Republicans, would he care to shed light on the political leanings of the vast majority of vote fraud perpetrators?

Republicans have to win any election "beyond the margin of fraud" these days why not ask for ID to prove you have the right to vote?

"Assault on ballot access?" It's more like an assault on National Socialist Democrat voting fraud, Mr. Caldwell. As a particularly mediocre president once said, "Elections have consequences." Suck it up, and deal with it.

This is rich coming from those who authored the secretary of state project, stuffing the state offices with democrats who always managed to "find" enough votes in close elections to pull out the win. We're tired of facilitating voting for illegals, dead people, and the list goes on.

"In Texas, for example, showing a military ID or a concealed-gun license will get you a ballot, but a college ID won’t."

What do the valid forms of ID have in common? They are issued be the State or Federal government, just as a drivers license. A college ID is not.

Some colleges are privately owned. Some have not yet been accredited. Did you know anyone can be the founder of their own college? Just create a corporation, offer classes and announce you are a college. Photo ID machines cost extra, though.

How many voter registration cards were returned with Address Unknown in Minnesota.  63,000 comes to mind.  Guess who won?  The next time a police officer wants to see my license I will tell him I am disenfranchised and go read this article.

Why do we want it to be easy to vote? Nothing worth doing is ever easy. When we make it completely effortless to vote we get a bunch of knuckleheads who don't know and don't care what's going on in the world and certainly don't have a clue on how to fix our broken country.

No early voting, no 'motor-voter', no same-day registrations, photo ID required, and a vigorous culling of the voter rolls every year, that's what we need. 

Democrats want it to be easy to vote because they want it to be easy for them to cheat.

Pat, Pat, Pat. People don't vote-Citizens DO! If you haven't got the gumption get some valid form of ID  then how can you cast an intelligent ballot? Then again you don't want an intelligent voter-you want a Democratic Voter.

If this guy weren't trying to be serious it would be hilarious.  To believe that requiring a photo ID in order to vote is somehow evil is ludicrous.  Like all libs, he wants as many ineligible voters to come to the polls as possible.  Without such votes, the dems stand no chance of winning a national election.

Proof of voter fraud = Acorn. Would you want your vote negated by some activist getting paid $5 a head to register some illiterate off the street 9 times over? 
I spend a great deal of time educating myself about the issues, politicians and such. To know that there are those out there cancelling my vote for a $5 bill is enough for me to ask for a minimum of a photo ID to vote.

That's a middle-class argument.  Paying $20 or $30 for a license is not a big deal if you can afford a car, gas, and insurance.  But it is a big deal for those who can't afford a car, can't afford rent, and can't afford to buy food for their families.  I can imagine that "johnleehooker" and people who agree with him do not know anybody who has to sell blood to buy food for their kids or who frequents their local food pantries.  If identification were free, then you would have a legitimate argument.

Voting is a right.  There should be no barrier to exercising your rights.

That is true.  Almost every case of ballot fraud and stolen elections comes from the counting process.  Those who count the votes can decide which votes are legal or make up ballots.

Why would anyone vote for a Republican?

Your claim that there is an absence of voting fraud is baseless. If you have no way to prove the identity of the person voting, you have no way to prove (or disprove) voting fraud. Figuring out a reasonable and cost effective way to effectuate determination of voter elegibility can be both inclusive and inspire confidence in the outcome for all candidates.

Here in  Florida, almost every election brings a prosecution for voter fraud. Mostly in Democrat controlled Dade County.  I notice the author mentioned successful prosecutions. How many were unsuccessful and how many fraudulent votes were not detected because under current methods it is impossible to detect.  I seem to recall that NH has similar laws. Obama supporters in 2008 made no bones of using them to help their candidate.

the right to vote does not require that you buy alcohol,purchase auto insurance,enter a contract,buy a house,set up a brokerage account OR BE FORCED TO PURCHASE A STATE ISSUED ID!!

I have an idea that I am sure you will love Mr. Caldwell -- how about allowing only those people to vote who pay taxes?  We had a revolution because of taxation without representation.  Now maybe we need a movement to fight representation without taxation as there are now too many riding in the cart, who are not helping to pull it.  Many of these people want even more free "benies" from the rest of us.

In California, one of the most liberal states in the union, I must show a photo ID to vote.  So claims that these voter ID laws are in opposition to voting rights is ridiculous. Even if you don't have a license, it's such a small matter to get a state ID card as to make claims that it 'stifles voting' ridiculous on their face.  Moreover, I've had to re-register each time I've moved, and have done so immediately so as not to interfere with my ability to vote at the next election. 

When we've got counties where more votes are submitted than there are eligible voters in residence, we have a problem.  Problems need solutions, and those being criticized by this article are ridiculously mild.

This article is just so much recycled democrat "vote early; vote often" bull crap. The issue here - and across the country - is preventing voter fraud. Period.

That is why these intitiatives are constantly being pushed down by democrats; it just calls out further that their constant opposition to tighter processes to ensure who is voting is who should be voting, just exposes them for the higher degree of mistrust and scorn that they so rightfully deserve on this subject.

If you have nothing to hide or fear, you would agree.

And to disagree with such a basic, common sense desire to prevent voter fraud exposes one as complicit in the attempt to deceive via such practices.

Railing against the ID requirement is inane.  One can't even get a job, apply for government assistance, travel by plane, bus or boat, etc. without a government issued ID.   If the complainers wanted to make a difference in the lives and futures of these voters, they should provide assistance in acquiring a government issued ID.

If you cannot prove who you are you have no business voting. We need to make sure that the process of obtaining a picture ID is make available to any and all qualified citizens.  Then anyone not taking the "trouble" to obtain a picture ID should not be allowed  to vote.

A number of thoughts:

1) Require photo ID: Good. However, it must be easy to get a compliant ID. Why not just permit people WITHOUT a compliant ID to go to the DMV and get their picture on their voters card?

2) Restricting early voting: Bad

3) Elminate same day registration: Good. You need time to check your rolls. Besides, somebody who can't be bothered to plan ahead to vote...., well......

4) Fining voter-reg organizations for errors: Good. Voting is a personal responsibility that shouldn't be corrupted by letting specific groups get into the process.

5) Arguing that because there isn't a record of massive voter fraud, any of these measures are unnecessary: Stupid. That's like saying that because nobody has ever been killed by a personally-owned bazooka, everyone should be permitted to buy one.

I would point you to a Heritage Foundation article which addresses many of the assertions made in this article.


Voting in an election is a big deal. I'd personally rather it not be made too convenient, though where the line should be is worthy of civil debate.  Citizens need to be stakeholders in their own country and voting is one way to express that commitment. It should require at the very least some effort, or else it becomes something mundane.

I've worked many elections and the worst voter fraud I ever viewed was in the Lawarence MA area during the Scott Brown election.  I personally watched an abundant amount of voter fraud, all coming on the Democratic side.  in one instance a van containing 10 people showed up at 3 differennt precincts and the same people voted in each one (MA only required a utility bill to prove you are a resident, no ID).  I want all qualified voters to vote but I absolutely reject that the Democratic fraud machine be allowed to continue to perpetuate itself.

The author's point that voter fraud is a red herring comes only from his ignorance of actual voting in elections.  I will say I have only seen voter fraud come from one side of the isle and that is why democrats abhor voter ID's and others support the concept.

One person, one vote, one time.

That seems like a simple goal, and the right one.  Neither side of the aisle thinks voting is working - so why not fix it?  Why don't we reinvent voting to accomplish this goal in a tech-enabled world?  Why don't we make it easy for legal citizens to vote anywhere - and only once?  Why are we stuck in the cudgel of nonsensical arguments about whether you should have to prove you are who you say you are to vote  (of course we should), that you have a right to vote in any particular election (of course you have to live where you vote), or how hard we can make it to let you vote (it should not be hard - but of course it should be secure)?   We have all these security options that would solve both - PIN numbers, Secure drivers licenses, Biometrics (eye, finger, facial recognition, etc) - why don't we use them?  We can find ways to get SS checks to the old - can't we get them access to a secure ID and a laptop to vote?

And by the way, why should you only be able to vote at a polling place or via mail - why not at any bank, a post office, the DMV, the internet - or even Safeway - if you can pass the ID requirements?   And why do you need to vote while physically in your district - shouldn't you be able to vote at home while on vacation or traveling on business?  Or even just if you're late getting home from work? 

The argument that there's no voter fraud is an outrageous lie - when the vote is close, it happens all the time.  Gov Gregoire was elected in Washington by districts where more people voted than were registered.  Pres Kennedy was elected by the dead in Chicago and Texas.  Several house and senate races have been tipped by fraud in numerous states.  And the 2000 election - while numerous counts confirmed the result, but not the legitimacy of the voters - was nearly destroyed by fraud in notorious South Florida counties.   In 2004, college students across California were encouraged to vote multiple times - in their school precinct and back home - because Kerry needed their votes and there was no way to stop them from doing it.  Denial of the problem - even if it's rarely material - is irrelevant.  We need to trust our system - and we don't.  It needs to be fixed so it works - all the time.

And despite these doubts and frauds, we've gone the wrong way for political ends.  When the left runs things, it expands the voting period (we should all vote together an in a short time window - what if you vote 4 weeks early and find out the candidate is a thief/fool/etc... or conditions change such that the other guy would be better?), allowing registration without any secure ID (e.g. motor voter rules and the like), and by not requiring any ID be shown at the polling place (though you can vote for somebody by mail without any proof of who cast the ballot).   If the right runs things, we make it harder by requiring ID - but without making efforts to make secure ID easy to get, or we cut polling places, or we reduce access.  It's all ridiculous.

It would probably save money to pay legitimate entities to process legitimate votes - and not worry about the polling place so much as the voter.  We could attach biometric information to each vote to make sure it was cast legitimately, and ensure each voter only voted once.  We could expand the franchise, and prevent fraud, if we just stopped acting like jerks and did the right thing.  It would cost a little money up front - and rip control from the pols who are messing with us now - but isn't getting this right fundamental to the survival of the Republic?


Colorado's last
US senate election was close enough that 5000 Illegal aliens decided who our
senator was.


46,00 people
are registered to vote in New York and in Florida in 2000


King County in
Washinton State reported a discrepancy of 3,539 more ballots counted than
voters who voted in 2004

A review of Minnesota’s statewide
database of registered voters revealed at least 2,812 deceased individuals
voted in 2008 general election 

Mickey Mouse
Registered to vote in Florida


Everyone over
18 who actually exists and needs one has a photo ID

The left's campaign against Republican bills restricting vote fraud show just how systemic the fraud is.

The idea that asking someone to register 30 days before an election, or that you are required to bring an ID are perfectly reasonable criteria to cast a ballot.

While both parties engage in shenanigans when they can, the shear number of people in cities, combined with the near total ownership of the voting apparatus is places like New York and Chicago, indicate that Dems gain much more from fraud than Republicans.

My view is that if you can't get voting down to 99.9% fraud free, you can't trust that your elected officials are legitimate. Vote fraud, even one tiny count of it, should have a sentence of mandatory prison time, a lifetime ban from any public employment, and a massive fine.

This is not Draconian. It is the basis of the entire Republic.

On the opposite side of the spectrum, what could be the reason for same day registration other than fraud? What is the basis of such a policy.  Increased turnout?

A rational balancing of interests exposes same day registration as nearly transparent ploy to bus easily corralled groups to cast suspect ballots.

Mailing-in ballots (OR), Provisional ballots, unwarranted delay on military ballots, early voting, and absentee voting, are all schemes to allow those in control of the voting apparatus to tweak outcomes in their favor.

Voting is something one does as an act of responsibility, not agitation.  Allow for a limited absentee process, mandate ballot integrity through IDs, count the votes before midnight on election eve, and tell people that if they want to vote, they should get prepared and informed.

To argue otherwise is a cynical attempt to tilt the scales in favor of fraud.

Do you people actually believe this B.S.?  If you remove the voter authentication requirement (photo ID or whatever), you have instant voter fraud.  The argument that there is "scant evidence" of fraud is absurd, because how will precinct workers determine whether a voter has fraudulently cast a vote?  He votes and he's gone.  Poof!  Oh, but at least we didn't "disenfranchise" him!  What's a little voter fraud if we can keep people enfranchised, right?  I'm sure we'll all sleep better (white guilt, and all that...)

Does same-day registration and removing a photo ID requirement do anything for voters having confidence in the integrity of the results?  If you want a vote, get some ID and authenticate who you are.  And get off the couch, go down to the voter registration office, and fill out the forms well in advance of the election. If you're mobile enough to pick up a check from a government agency, then surely you can fill out a short form while you're there.  Can we not ask this bare minimum effort by our citizens in exchange for them participating in the electoral process?  If a person's vote is so important, then do more to ensure the integrity of the process.

The notion that this is burdensome is laughable, and that is why no one takes you libs seriously anymore.  Let's just give all the poor, minorities, and illegal immigrants a pass and let them vote as many times as they like.  Yeah, that'll work.  Really, I do get it that most of those people will vote Democrat, and that is why you have your panties in a bunch.  With Obama being such a failure and all, I can't blame you for your desparation.  But, your efforts would be better spent educating your voters on the importance of having a valid photo ID and personal responsibility.  Yeah, I know...good luck with that.

Its time that the left face the facts. Conservatives are just smarter people. We know how to get an ID card, we know how to register to vote, we know how to vote absentee, we know what day the election is, we know how to drive or take a bus to go vote, we know that our employers must give us time to go and vote. We're just smarter, more adapable, problem solvers. Don't hate on people who are more intelligent than you are. Educate yourselves. Have a great day all!

I live in Indiana.  We've had the requirement for photo ID here for years.  Some college ID's - especially those issued by a state university - ARE acceptable forms of ID here.  The whole nonsense about requiring a photo ID is just that - nonsense.  There have been no real issues here since this law was enacted except those brought about by Democrats (the late Julia Carson comes to mind).

Even our AMISH population gets a state issued photo ID so they can vote.  And before you complain about Republicans here - remember Indiana voted for Obama in 2008.

Our county also uses electronic voting, with open polling places so that you can vote anywhere in the county you wish, not just in your precinct.  Guess what?  This has ALSO been successful, too.  (And surprise - both big towns here have Democrats as mayors, and they SUPPORT voter ID - because it provides for fair elections, and we have that shining example of Crook County (and it's subsidiary, Lake County) as our examples of how a real - and crooked - machine works.)

The idea that showing an ID is somehow burdensome is insane.  The only people that might have trouble are illegals and they shouldn't be voting anyway!  What small percentage of Americans don't have an ID by the time they are 18?  Such a small amount I can't imagine it's worth all the fuss.

There are cities where more ballots end up being cast than there are eligible voters!  Also, I live in ND without and voter ID laws.  When I was in college, EVERY Canadian student (and there are a lot of them) I knew at UND voted in the US elections.


It's time that the left face the facts, conservatives are just smarter people. We know how get a photo ID card, we know how to register to vote, we know how to vote absentee, we know what day the election is, we know how to drive or take a bus to go vote, we know that our employers must give us time off to vote. Conservatives are just more intelligent, adaptable problem solvers. The left likes to hold itself out as the party of deep thought, intellectualismand of course...nuance. If they can't manage to do the things that conservatives do easily, who was it that told them they were so smart. I believe they made the same mistake so many bad politicians make. They started believing their own press.

I agree with johnleehooker.

I have to go through a lot more intrustions than showing a photo ID if I want to exercise my Second Amendment rights (unless I buy a gun from a private party, which is rarely the case).

The DOJ lacks the moral authority to oversee much of anything at this point, because it is more or less a RICO-style criminal enterprise.

That is particularly with respect to voting matters in light of Holder's refusal to investigate the Black Panther presence at the polling place in 2008.

This is particularly comical as a result of the Democratic legislatures' gerrymandering Congressional districts and state House and Senate districts into preposterous arrangements.

biased, blueprint for voter fraud.   Great liberal tradition, attack the lawabiding, protect the lawless.

Voting isn't supposed to be a convenience store item.
You aren't supposed to be able to vote absentee just because you can't bother to come to the polling place on election day - it's supposed to be for people who are physically incapable of getting there.
Find me one person who doesn't have some form of ID, who is a legal citizen. It takes less than $10 to get a state ID - if you can't even afford that, *someone* out there will give it to you. Start asking. Myself, I *want* the polling place to ask for my ID. I *want* to know that everyone voting is legally eligible to vote, and that a bunch of bussed in out of state people aren't turning my one vote into 3/5ths of a vote.

If voting is so damned important to these people, then put down the xbox and go out to the polls to vote. On election day. And bring ID.

You can't get a bank account, drive a vehicle, buy alcohol, register for school, buy or sell a home, cash a check, get a block-buster movie card, cross the border, or even get a library card without an ID ... but somehow requiring an ID to vote is a burden?  Give me a break!

The voting process should have never been allowed to become this lax in the first place.  It's an invitation to fraud. Which is why democrats liked it that way. 

 Same day registration,  absentee voting,  early voting and not requiring legitimate voter ID are all abuses of the process that neutralize the votes of legitimate voters.  You need an ID to rent a movie but it's an unreasonable imposition to require it to vote?  Please.

You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)