2012 Tuesday: Voter fraud, not suppression, is real
It’s an election year, so we’re being treated to the usual back-and-forth about whether requiring voters to show a photo ID at the polls is an attempt to suppress voting or just voter fraud.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder — never hesitant to politicize an issue — last month likened voter ID laws to Jim Crow-era poll taxes that suppress minority voting. Of course, neither he nor any plaintiff in a court challenge to a voter ID laws has produced any evidence that suppression has taken place. I’ve always thought it is insulting to minorities to suggest they are incapable, or unmotivated, or whatever, when it comes to obtaining a free, state-issued photo ID.
On the contrary: Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp noted in a recent interview that since the General Assembly passed our voter ID law in 2006, the number of minority voters has soared — between both the 2004 and 2008 presidential elections, and the 2006 and 2010 gubernatorial elections. That’s strong evidence against the idea that the law is suppressing voting by minorities. (H/t: Georgia Tipsheet)
Critics of voter ID requirements argue that voter fraud is non-existent, and that champions of these laws are trying to solve a non-problem. A new book by two leading supporters of voter ID laws aims to take away that argument, too.
In “Who’s Counting?”, conservative journalist John Fund and former Civil Rights Commissioner (and one-time Georgia resident) Hans von Spakovsky argue that a current U.S. senator may be in office thanks to voter fraud. Byron York explains in a Washington Examiner column about the book:
In the ‘08 campaign, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman was running for re-election against Democrat Al Franken. It was impossibly close; on the morning after the election, after 2.9 million people had voted, Coleman led Franken by 725 votes.
Franken and his Democratic allies dispatched an army of lawyers to challenge the results. After the first canvass, Coleman’s lead was down to 206 votes. That was followed by months of wrangling and litigation. In the end, Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes. He was sworn into office in July 2009, eight months after the election.
During the controversy a conservative group called Minnesota Majority began to look into claims of voter fraud. Comparing criminal records with voting rolls, the group identified 1,099 felons — all ineligible to vote — who had voted in the Franken-Coleman race.
Minnesota Majority took the information to prosecutors across the state, many of whom showed no interest in pursuing it. But Minnesota law requires authorities to investigate such leads. And so far, Fund and von Spakovsky report, 177 people have been convicted — not just accused, but convicted — of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial. “The numbers aren’t greater,” the authors say, “because the standard for convicting someone of voter fraud in Minnesota is that they must have been both ineligible, and ‘knowingly’ voted unlawfully.” The accused can get off by claiming not to have known they did anything wrong.
York adds: “With 1,099 examples identified by Minnesota Majority, and with evidence suggesting that felons, when they do vote, strongly favor Democrats, it doesn’t require a leap to suggest there might one day be proof that Al Franken was elected on the strength of voter fraud.”
At the very least, those 1,099 examples — and 177 convictions, so far — represent far more evidence in favor of voter ID laws than opponents have ever mustered for their case.
– By Kyle Wingfield
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
472 comments Add your comment
JDW
August 7th, 2012
6:15 pm
@Rafe…”How anyone lives without an ID amazes me. Do we want these people voting?”
See thats sort of the problem…The GOP doesn’t want “those people” voting…even though they are eligible.
Thats what suppression means and thats how it’s being done. Implementing Voter ID laws that only really impact “those people”. You are gullible enough to buy off.
Logic was never intended for libs
August 7th, 2012
6:16 pm
“When 5% of the population gets 44.2% of the benefit and 20% gets 66% that equals tax cuts for the rich.”
Maybe the bottom percent should go to school, get a degree in something relevant and then they too can pay more taxes for dead beats.
@@
August 7th, 2012
6:16 pm
The only thing voter ID does is make life hard for 11 million Americans who are eligible to vote but don’t possess the required government issued photo ID.
So why don’t they have photo ID? The Lawyers’ Committee for Election Protection have compiled a set of Voter ID Toolkits that will help you get the ID you need to vote.
Hillbilly D
August 7th, 2012
6:17 pm
The anti-war crowd does themselves no favors when the dems controlled the whole shooting match for 2 years and elected to double down in Afghanistan……..like it or not folks both parties were/are involved. All this silliness about which one did what is a bit comical. There were yes votes for both wars, and yes votes to continue….it is what it is.
I can’t see where Obama’s actions in Iraq/Afghanistan were/are much different from Bush’s. The major reason troops are leaving Iraq is because that’s what Iraq wants.
JDW
August 7th, 2012
6:20 pm
@@@…”So why don’t they have photo ID? The Lawyers’ Committee for Election Protection have compiled a set of Voter ID Toolkits that will help you get the ID you need to vote”
O’dear maybe they can sign on the internet from thier spanking new computer in their nice house after work tonight.
We are talking about poor and old people…get real.
@@
August 7th, 2012
6:20 pm
JDW:
Who are “those people”?
@@
August 7th, 2012
6:22 pm
JDW:
I’m in agreement with Hillbilly on this one. If they’re old, they’ve likely got a government issued Social Security card. If they’re poor, how are they getting by without government assistance, WHICH, should require some sort of government issued ID.
Logic was never intended for libs
August 7th, 2012
6:25 pm
“We are talking about poor and old people…get real.”
And both can get a valid drivers license or a state issued license.
But you already knew that.
Dusty
August 7th, 2012
6:25 pm
Hey Rafe,
Glad you got here before closing time. Always good to read some clear thinking..
______________________
Logic,
Kinda sad about JamVet. But I will say no more. I’ll try to stick to worries about voter fraud.
Logic was never intended for libs
August 7th, 2012
6:25 pm
“how are they getting by without government assistance, WHICH, should require some sort of government issued ID.”
BINGO
I wrote that earlier and NOT ONE SINGLE LEFT WINGER said a peep.
To get welfare, a person HAS to show a valid photo ID.
Logic was never intended for libs
August 7th, 2012
6:26 pm
“Kinda sad about JamVet. But I will say no more. I’ll try to stick to worries about voter fraud.”
I hear you, Dusty. I just love to call out JamVets bs and lies.
JDW
August 7th, 2012
6:27 pm
@@@…”If they’re old, they’ve likely got a government issued Social Security card. If they’re poor, how are they getting by without government assistance, WHICH, should require some sort of government issued ID.”
Of course they have a Social Security card that’s how they registered and were verified…unfortunately that is not an acceptable government issued photo ID and is not accepted as Voter ID so even though they are registered, eligible and verified THEY CAN’T VOTE.
Logic was never intended for libs
August 7th, 2012
6:29 pm
“unfortunately that is not an acceptable government issued photo ID
And that’s why most of them have a drivers license of state ID card. What is it with you and not understanding that simple idea?
HDB
August 7th, 2012
6:29 pm
Logic was never intended for libs
August 7th, 2012
6:01 pm
“Voter ID laws are nothing more than a backdoor way to create a POLL TAX”
More lies from left wingers.”
Really….if you have to PAY to get a birth certificate in order to get a “free voter ID”….that IS basically a backdoor POLL TAX!!
JDW
August 7th, 2012
6:31 pm
@”Logic”…”To get welfare, a person HAS to show a valid photo ID.”
God you are ignorant…NO THEY DON”T
http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/outreach/Translations/English/need.htm
JDW
August 7th, 2012
6:32 pm
@”Logic”…”most of them have a drivers license of state ID card”
And yet 11 million don’t…guess you missed that little point.
Michael H. Smith
August 7th, 2012
6:33 pm
The anti-war crowd does themselves no favors when the dems controlled the whole shooting match for 2 years and elected to double down in Afghanistan……..like it or not folks both parties were/are involved.
Dems have no moral high ground on the issue of war. The historical record of the last century reveals the country going to war under democrat Presidents by a ration of about 5:1 and two of those wars where global.
So why does the so-called anti-war crowd coalesce around the democrats?
Anyone against war might want to reconsider ever voting democrat or any socialist leaning politician.
BTW, when the democrats held the absolute power of two branches of government they could have ended both wars but chose to continue.
Back on topic, Kyle… Voter photo ID is a necessary step to prevent ineligible voters from voting. Purging voter rolls would be another, coupled with auditing voter rolls. None of these things will deter the committed living legally eligible voters from casting their ballots.
Hillbilly D
August 7th, 2012
6:34 pm
@@
A Social Security card isn’t enough to draw a check when you get 65 (or whatever age it is for you). You have to prove how old you are and that takes a birth certificate. It’s a pain in the butt to get one, if you don’t have one, but it’s done every day. You also need to apply for your Social Security a year before you want/are eligible to start drawing. It takes that long to go through the process.
As a for instance, Daddy had been a registered voter for years, was a WWII vet, had a Georgia Veterans Drivers license (still does), but he still had to have a birth certificate, to prove he was old enough to draw his Social Security. He didn’t have one so he had to go through the state and get one. I forget how many but there are several things they will accept as proving when you were born. One is family Bible records and I forget what else. I do know that you have to have more than one thing (seems like it was 3) off a list of several.
That would apply to anybody born in Georgia before 1919 and to an awful lot of people, especially in rural areas, that were born in the 20 years or so, after that. It was about WWII before people really started to comply with birth and death certificates, in Georgia.
Hillbilly D
August 7th, 2012
6:36 pm
And back to the topic of voter fraud, if you really are serious about it, I think absentee ballots would probably be the easiest place for mischief to occur.
Logic was never intended for libs
August 7th, 2012
6:38 pm
“if you have to PAY to get a birth certificate in order to get a “free voter ID”….that IS basically a backdoor POLL TAX!!”
HDB is a very confused person.
HDB
August 7th, 2012
6:39 pm
Logic”…”To get welfare, a person HAS to show a valid photo ID
WRONG!! A library card or voter’s registration card along with Social Security card is all that’s needed!! If that works for welfare……..
http://www.welfareinfo.org/
Logic was never intended for libs
August 7th, 2012
6:39 pm
“God you are ignorant…NO THEY DON”T”
Yes. Yes you do.
HDB
August 7th, 2012
6:41 pm
Logic was never intended for libs
August 7th, 2012
6:38 pm
Far from confused! Think about it this way….I have to PURCHASE a birth certificate to get identification…and I need identification to get a birth certificate!! Since I have to PAY to get the identification needed to vote…basically, I have to PAY so that I can vote…which was a POLL TAX!!
Use logic……
Logic was never intended for libs
August 7th, 2012
6:41 pm
“WRONG!! A library card or voter’s registration card along with Social Security card is all that’s needed!! ”
Common documents asked for are proof of income, ID, and utility bills or other proof of residency.
Guess you don’t even read the links that you post.
Kyle Wingfield
August 7th, 2012
6:42 pm
All right, that’s all for tonight. Comments will be in moderation until tomorrow morning.
@@
August 7th, 2012
6:43 pm
Hillbilly:
To my way of thinking, all things are possible if the motivation is there.
One of my most treasured possessions was a Social Security card my Dad got for me. It was available only to veterans (metal). My billfold went missing with the card inside it.
Didn’t care about the money or anything else in the billfold…but that card meant world to me.
md
August 7th, 2012
6:43 pm
“When 5% of the population gets 44.2% of the benefit and 20% gets 66% that equals tax cuts for the rich.”
Now that is some mathematical gymnastics…….considering most of the taxes are already paid by that 5%, it stands to reason that any cuts would be weighted in that direction……
If one is already paying 0 in income tax, they aren’t really going to benefit much more now are they?
Geez JDW, that’s some funky math…….
TGT
August 7th, 2012
6:45 pm
Why is anyone surprised that the party of the godless would stoop to simple vote fraud? I mean the leader of said party is a man that advocated for infanticide!!! Besides, vote fraud is a civil right in Chicago.
John L Lightner
August 7th, 2012
6:45 pm
Voters are not the only thing Republicans are aiming to suppress. They want to suppress women, the
poor, intellectuals, and representative government.
JDW
August 7th, 2012
6:51 pm
@”logic”…take it up with the USDA, you know the ones that make the rules. A link to which I included so you might educate yourself and you unsurprisingly ignored.
yuzeyurbrane
August 7th, 2012
6:52 pm
td @ 1:32– your questions assumes facts which are not in evidence. You assume that there is nothing to prevent voter impersonation fraud other than a photo id, for one example. Traditionally, voting law has provided for party poll watchers and the ability to challenge anyone who they suspect is not the qualified voter. Any large scale effort would presumably be detected. Further, voting fraud of this type has long been a felony. Do you really think anyone is going to risk 1 fraudulent vote for this? The main tool for assuring honest voting has long been voter registration. The process is easily scrutinized and suspected false registrants can be challenged long before an election. Not to mention that most places routinely purge voting rolls of non-voters every 4 years. In fact, voter registration was initiated as a late 19th century reform measure to counter Tammany Hall type election fraud. Somehow, we were considered to be a democracy for the about 150 years before we even had voter registration.
On the other hand, voter suppression type of fraud has a longer and larger history in America. Racists quickly recognized that the voter registration reform could conveniently be expropriated to devise clever schemes to disenfranchise blacks. Thus, we had literacy tests with 1 set of questions for whites and another for blacks. We had poll taxes, voter registration offices open only once a month for 4 hrs. in 1 location, property owning requirements, etc., not to mention Klan murder, mayhem, and terrorism. As some of the worse abuses were countered, new ones were invented—fewer polling booths in “bad” precincts, older and fewer voting machines in “bad” precincts. Now, we have elimination of early voting days, fewer early voting locations at “bad” precincts, photo id requirements which are costly and inconvenient to obtain which fall harder on “bad” voters, purges based on faulty data, disqualification of more former prison inmates than before, etc. For example, hanging chads aside, hundreds of thousands of qualified likely Gore voters in Florida were purged from the rolls in 2000. Very reliable statistical analyses show that a full implementation of the Republican voter suppression strategy could disenfranchise millions of qualified but “bad” voters in 2012. The reality is that the issue is more nuanced than you suggest. There is some fraud in actual voting but you have to balance it against the massive fraud resulting from our historic indulgence in voter suppression
Don’t you think a mature democracy makes it as easy as possible to allow all qualified voters to vote and let the chips fall where they may based on the persuasiveness and merits of the candidates’ arguments?
What sort of country do you want? It is a dangerous path to start weeding out voters who are “not smart enough” or “don’t own property”. Maybe some believe doctors and engineers are functional illiterates re politics and public policy and should be disenfranchised? Maybe you believe a below average IQ test score should disenfranchise someone? I don’t know but I know that path is a dangerous one for our democracy.
Lil' Barry Bailout - Vote American
August 7th, 2012
6:54 pm
Americans want the voting process to be as secure and reliable as possible. Democrats don’t. Honest elections favor Republicans.
Pizzaman
August 7th, 2012
7:02 pm
Seems I got here too late and have to go into moderation, so I doubt this will ever be seen. I read your article Kyle but didn’t have time to read all 423 comments but my question is this: How many cases of actual voter fraud in GA, not Mn. I believe the number is 1 since 1948 and I believe that one was in 1948, according to the secretary of GA. I also seriously doubt his claim that minority registration is up. And BTW if the people who actually register a voter do their job correctly all you should need is someone in the polling place who knows you. Contrary to the idiot congresswoman from Augusta who put the law in play, church vans don’t take “them Blacks” to several places to vote. IF the registrar has done the job you can only vote one place and they are responsible for letting you vote just once. Mickey Mouse has never voted for a Dem or Rub anywhere. Just more redneckrepublican bull.
Rafe Hollister, suffering through Oblamer's ineptocracy
August 7th, 2012
7:02 pm
O’dear maybe they can sign on the internet from thier spanking new computer in their nice house after work tonight.
Nope, but if they had an ID they could use the FREE computers at the library. People who make life hard on themselves, don’t get to complain about the hardship.
Samantha
August 7th, 2012
7:30 pm
Having to prove my identity to vote is perfectly reasonable. I don’t want there to be ANY possibility that people who are not qualified to vote are influencing elections. Providing simple id is so incredilby reasonable that I worry that democrats are really afraid that if they have ID it won’t be so easy to steal elections. Really, all this noise because you have to provide about the same ID as a library card? Seriously?
What are the democrats really trying to protect?
Lynnie Gal
August 7th, 2012
8:03 pm
Not a shred of evidence of voter fraud and state Republicans pass legislation making it harder to vote, close polling sites in Democratic areas, eliminate or reduce early voting, and use every dirty trick such as phone messages telling people the election is another day than it really is. Mike Huckebee even suggested that Republicans go into Democratic areas and let the air out of tires on election day. Anything to steal an election. As far as felons voting Democrat, I guess the right wing white supremacist who just killed six people in a temple, (i.e. felon) would vote Democrat if he got the chance, eh?
Ronnie Raygun
August 7th, 2012
8:10 pm
Must have missed all of the absentee ballot voter fraud in Kyle’s article. You know, the frauds that favor republicans and the absentee ballots that don’t require the voter to show I.D. under these new voter I.D. laws.
Why don’t ALL voters have to show I.D.?
marko
August 8th, 2012
6:16 am
Every time I buy a six pack of beer I’m required to show my proper identification. This always annoys the hell out of me because I’m sixty years old, and couldn’t be confused with a twenty year old in the most favorable lighting, let alone the glaring neon’s at the super market. stupid laws, passed by stupid politicians, elected by stupid voters. I can never figure out why I’m stupid and I vote isn’t a popular bumper sticker.
Why the big deal about a request most consider nothing more than minor nuisance? It occurs to me that drug dealers don’t ask our kids to show their ID’s. Can’t buy beer? No biggie we’ll just score some meth instead. Stupidity is a gift that just keeps on giving.
Some time ago, I really can’t remember where, I was listening to one of Nixon’s famous expletives deleted tapes. As many of my grey haired brethren may remember, Nixon declared war on drugs. Since that glorious day, We’ve spent billions, and imprisoned millions. Why was Nixon inspired to throw the collective might of the federal government in a war against drugs? Was he concerned about our vulnerable youth, our values, or the vengeance of a wrathful god? Nope, none of these things seemed to concern Tricky Dick. He was however terrified that pot smokers tended to be democrats. In Nixon’s delusional paranoid universe drugs created democrats, and come hell or high water he was going to stop them.
Fast forward. Today we’re lead to believe that voter fraud is a huge problem. Grandma has voted in every election since Dewey beats Truman, but now she needs a picture ID. Thank god we’ve saved democracy. About that war on drugs,not to worry
victory’s just around the corner.
SBinF
August 8th, 2012
6:56 am
Anyone seen this? This guy has correctly called every presidential election since 1984. His model has far better results than anything going. He says Romney is toast.
http://www.american.edu/media/news/20100712_Lichtman_Predicts_Obama_Wins_Reelection_2012.cfm
marko
August 8th, 2012
7:07 am
For the record, I am concerned a great deal about voter fraud. However, I think Kyle’s pointing at a pit bull, and saying check out that scary looking tail. Even though the pit bull may leave an unwelcome surprise on your lawn from time to time, the tail isn’t the problem It’s the other side. The Teeth. By the same token, the problem with voter fraud isn’t caused by casting ballots, but rather by counting them. these silly voter ID laws do nothing to address the larger issue.
Willis
August 8th, 2012
7:36 am
People seem to assume that only fraudulent votes come from Democrats. I guess that means all the Republicans are 100% pure?
Bob
August 8th, 2012
7:48 am
Kyle, other than the 77 convicted of fraud you have no other examples because we all know it never happens, exept those cases where people are actually convicted and in jail. But other than those we know it never happens.
bookman parrot
August 8th, 2012
8:05 am
liberals don’t need truth and evidence. they just need inuendo and the race card.
ITS ALL BUSHS FAULT
August 8th, 2012
8:13 am
GOP CONS ARE ALL FRAUDS
stands for decibels
August 8th, 2012
8:21 am
I might add that the Washington Examiner opinion piece Kyle linked and quoted from is one of the whiniest, weakest, most blatant examples of sore-loserdom I’ve seen from the right in many a month.
Franken won, fair and square, and the recount was as closely monitored and transparent as any in this nation’s history. His opponent had ample opportunity to legally challenge the decision and he availed himself of that opportunity, to the point where–and I will give credit to Coleman for this much–it began to seem hopelessly petty to drag the process out any further. (As a result, Al Franken was finally seated in July 2009, six months after the rest of the new Senators had been sworn in.)
If that’s not good enough for you, nothing would be.
Fretting over the possibility that some who voted might have, if you squinted hard and stood on your head, been found ineligible after all, nearly four years later?
That is scraping bottom.
JamVet
August 8th, 2012
8:25 am
…liberals don’t need truth and evidence.
Well, they certainly are never going to get any of either from you…
Jim
August 8th, 2012
8:29 am
Convicted felons can get a driver’s license, so I fail to see how this particular fraud could have been avoided. Minnesota needs to do a better job of purging the voter registration list of convicted felons.
Mr. Howell
August 8th, 2012
8:39 am
I enjoy reading all of the comments on various subjects. Registering to vote is what is required; if you have done so….you should vote for whomever you prefer. Stopping and preventing people who are register to vote becomes a problem…….and that goes on all of the time. Every legal vote counts and we must stop doing crazy things to keep anyone from voting. There is no such thing as a perfect person running for office……and whomever you prefer to vote for…do it. Really, there is no different in any person running for office, they are both human beings with different agenda….perhaps personal but that is what we are ourselves, personal to vote for those we want to vote for. The rest of the opinions are well perceived and put yourself in the shoes of the person running…you want more votes then the other person to win the office of the President. To put things in a ugly way……we all have been pulled into this “money” contribution for those running for President, and that is what it takes to win……..money! In voting and giving your party the money you want them to have ensure they are honest, forthright and upfront because if they are not, our economy will not get better because it would be focus on the person elected into office with a lot of baggages that was not open up when he had the opportunities to do so!
Get Over It
August 8th, 2012
8:39 am
The first time I went to vote, I could not believe that they didn’t ask me for ID. It was intuitively obvious to me that I would need to identify myself to exercise the most fundamental right of citizenship. At this point, the courts have approved the GA law, it has been proven not to be overly burdensome, and it is common sense. Why are we still talking about it?
stands for decibels
August 8th, 2012
8:41 am
Minnesota needs to do a better job of purging the voter registration list of convicted felons.
If that’s their law (and I guess it is), I agree. Whining about it 3½ years later is a bit unseemly, though.
That said, can someone explain to me why people who have served their time, and who are supposed to go back to being productive, taxpaying citizens, should not have a right to vote?
What, pray tell, is the point to that?