Thread: Fighting Vote Fraud With Photo ID

Fighting Vote Fraud With Photo ID
By Robert Bluey
Sunday, January 6, 2008

All eyes will be on New Hampshire Wednesday morning for the first true primary in the 2008 elections. But even as hardy New Englanders trudge to the polls, something at least as consequential will happening in Washington, D.C., where the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a major case on election law.

In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board and Indiana Democratic Party v. Rokita, the court will tackle the issue of vote fraud. The arguments will revive the debate over voter disenfranchisement that raged after the contested presidential election of 2000.

This time the controversy surrounds Indiana’s requirement that voters show photo identification when they cast their ballot. At a time when Americans are asked to show photo ID for routine things such as buying alcohol or getting on an airplane, it hardly seems unreasonable to do the same before voting. There’s also overwhelming public support for voter ID requirements; Rasmussen puts the number at 77 percent approval nationally.

In Indiana, however, a coalition of left-leaning groups -- led by the state Democratic Party and ACLU -- has brought suit against the state, claiming that requiring photo ID at polling places disenfranchises low-income citizens, minorities and seniors -- constituencies considered key to Democratic electoral success..

Claims of disenfranchisement have been rebutted in numerous studies of voter ID requirements. The most recent, a statistical analysis completed by The Heritage Foundation in September, flatly concluded that voter ID laws don’t depress voter turnout.

“Voter identification laws largely do not have the claimed negative impact on voter turnout based on state-to-state comparisons,â€

In Indiana, however, a coalition of left-leaning groups -- led by the state Democratic Party and ACLU -- has brought suit against the state, claiming that requiring photo ID at polling places disenfranchises low-income citizens, minorities and seniors -- constituencies considered key to Democratic electoral success..

How about the democratic party and the ACLU sue stores that require a photo ID to cash a personal check?


"We enforce our laws, and we defend law-abiding citizens. And we reserve the benefits of citizenship for legal residents."
Matt Blunt Governor of Missouri

Sadly our govenor and legislature refuse to make it a law that you need any id to vote in New Hampshire. They use all the same b.s. arguments that it is a burden, etc.

I have witnessed "questionable" people voting and on election night you can see people-especially at border cities-many with out of state plates that do not speak a lick of English. This coupled with Moveon.org-they are legally allowed to look at the list of who has checked in or not. I witnessed this in the last election and called the Republican party on election night and was told it was legal. It doesn't take a PhD in Physics to realize if Moveon.org is looking at the check in list and the polls close at 8:00 and John Smith has not checked in and it is 7:50-well it is worth a shot sending some fraud into vote because afterall here in New Hampshire you do not need ID to vote. That coupled with the fact that you cannot "challenge" a college student whose address is a dorm and tries to vote . There are lawyers all set to sue on their behalf. My husband had the displeasure of working with one such attorney who uses a vacation day on every election day to make sure these college students have the "right" to vote. Then they still vote absentee from the actual state of residency. It is the biggest scam going. God forbid you try to even discuss it and they scream and yell at you that you are disenfranchising them and discriminating against them. People really need to open their eyes to the voter fraud that goes on.

I need an id to board a plane, rent a car, etc. But we are not allowed to ask for one to vote? To me that is disenfranchising those of us who show id and legally vote as our vote could be cancelled out by those participating in voter fraud.

It's BS, pure and simple.

I am falling off the politically correct bandwagon here, but I firmly believe that as long as you need an ID to buy liquor and receive government benefits, then the poor and disenfranchised will absolutely have an ID.

OH FCOL. THE POOR AND MINORITIES AND SENIORS ALL HAVE PICTURE ID. SENIORS ESPECIALLY HAVE ID TO CASH THEIR SS CHECK AND TO GET MEDICAL CARE. GIVE ME A BREAK. WHO THE HEC DO THEY THINK THEY ARE KIDDING? THE POOR AND MINORITIES DONT HAVE A FRICKIN DRIVER'S LICENSE? OR ID? THEY ALL HAVE ONE UNLESS THEY ARE RUNNING FROM THE LAW OR ARE HERE ILLEGALLY.

LMAO....OH THE POOR MINORITES.....OH THE POOR PEOPLE.....OH THE POOR SENIORS.......LOL. SINCE WHEN DONT POOR PEOPLE HAVE ID? SINCE WHEN DONT SENIORS HAVE ID? SINCE WHEN? THEY ALL HAVE IT......LMAO.

IT IS AN INSULT TO OUR INTELLIGENCE TO EVEN SUGGEST THAT THESE GROUPS DONT HAVE ID. IN THE PAST VOTERS HAD TO SHOW ID. THEY STOPPED REQUIRING THIS SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE. BUT BACK WHEN THEY DID REQUIRE IT, NO ONE HAD A PROBLEM SHOWING ID TO VOTE.

AND I WOULD GO SO FAR AS TO SAY THAT IF YOU CANT GET YOUR ACT TOGETHER TO SUPPLY AN ID, THEN YOU SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO VOTE ANYWAY.

INSTEAD OF THESE PEOPLE WHINING THAT THIS WILL DISENFRANCHISE PEOPLE.....THEY SHOULD START UP A PROGRAM TO HELP GET ID FOR THOSE WHO ARE TOO FAR GONE TO BE ABLE TO GET ONE BY THEMSELVES. THEY SHOULD START A VOTER DRIVE TO REGISTER VOTERS AND GET ID FOR THOSE TOO WEAK OR POOR TO OBTAIN ONE. BUT I BET THERE ARE NOT ANY PEOPLE THAT ARE NOT CAPABLE OF DOING THIS FOR THEMSELVES. ALL BS.