Tag Archives: voter id laws

The New Voting Laws In North Carolina

Posted on by

The North Carolina legislature has been working on a good voter identification law for a while. They are aware of the fact that a law has to be strong enough to be effective, yet able to get through any court challenges that may ensue. I don’t understand why the Democrat Party supports voter fraud, but that is a story for another day.

The Voter Integrity Project North Carolina released the following press release yesterday:

Update on Voter ID Compromise

June 19, 2015

Excuses

June 19, 2015 (RALEIGH)–After tapping several legislative sources today, we’re convinced the GOP caucus did not “intentionally” gut the voter ID law. Also, their limited window into election fraud analysis leads them to believe the new loophole won’t be a big deal in North Carolina. We humbly accept the former assertion but guardedly accept the latter.

At the end of the day, their new exception will, indeed, allow anybody to walk in with one of several non-photo pieces of paper (called “HAVA IDs”) and be guaranteed a vote that counts . . . so long as they fill out the paperwork correctly. We view this as a major security breach, but Rep Lewis said South Carolina, only had 114 voters exercised this loophole. We hope the same holds true here, but we’ll prepare for the worse.

Rodent Problems

Several highly placed sources convince us that it was an inside job. This emergency legislation was caused by middle- and lower-level bureaucrats at DMV who collected fees for those “free” voter ID cards and demanded more documentation than allowed by law. Whether accidental or deliberate, those state employees raised new doubts about winning the entire voter ID lawsuit and that’s what triggered the lopsided vote count.

Unconfirmed report: One of DMV’s victims was a State Senator’s own mother, so they’re paying closer attention now.

At any rate, we’re modifying our “tell them to veto cry” and are now urging them to investigate the sources of such harassment, . . . down to the specific employee.

The notion of “progressive” moles undermining Republicans in the NC government complex is no shocker. One Rep even laughed, “they’re not used to having Republican bosses.” But jokes aside, Linda Paine, Director of California’s Election Integrity Project, even caught their DMV subverting laws against driver’s licenses for illegal aliens. So, NCDMV workers hassling applicants for their free voter ID cards is all too plausible . . . and very convenient for voter ID opponents!

Governor McCrory and Transportation Secretary Bob Tata owe the public a full explanation.

Sometimes you just have to take a first step before everything falls into place.

 

Protecting North Carolina Voters

Posted on by

Tonight the Coastal Carolina Taxpayers Association held a public meeting in the Stanly Hall Ballroom in New Bern to discuss the voter law recently passed in North Carolina. The speakers were Susan Myric of Civitas, Meloni Wray, Director of Craven County Elections, and Gary Clemmons, Chairman of the Craven County Board of Elections.

H.B. 589, the Voter Information Verification Act (VIVA), aka the Voter Identification Bill, is the first comprehensive change to North Carolina election law in decades. H.B. 589 passed the North Carolina House of Representatives in April of 2013. In July the North Carolina Senate amended H.B. 589 and passed it. The bill then went back to the House of Representatives. The bill was ratified on July 26, and the Governor signed it on August 12. The ACLU, NAACP, and various other organizations promptly filed lawsuits against the bill, with Eric Holder later filing a suit against the State of North Carolina.

The lawsuits filed are objecting to the change in early voting–from 17 days to 10 days, the end of same day voter registration, and the end of out-of-precinct voting. There will be a hearing on September 25 in Charlotte regarding the change in the voting law.

Under the new law, voters must register to vote by October 10, 2014. This gives the Board of Elections the opportunity to verify the address of the voter. Under the new law, voters will be required to vote at their correct precinct based on their address as of 30 days prior to Election Day. In 2016, voters will be required to show an acceptable photo ID. In 2014 all voters will be asked if he or she has one of the acceptable ID’s for the purpose of voting. A list of acceptable photo ID will be provided for review at the polling location. Instructions will be given to voters without acceptable ID on how to obtain a no-fee photo ID from the NCDMV.

The request for photo ID when voting is not unreasonable. We live in a society where photo ID is required for many activities–purchasing cigarettes or liquor, to board an airplane, to cash a check, to receive government benefits, etc. It also makes sense to have voters register to vote in time for their addresses to be verified.

Hopefully, the Court will uphold this law, as it ensures that every vote counts by attempting to eliminate voter fraud.

It Really Was No Big Deal

Posted on by

Yesterday The Daily Signal posted an article about this week’s election in Mississippi. The article wasn’t about the candidates or even about who won–it was about a part of the election that got very little publicity.

The article reports:

Mississippi’s new voter ID law got its first run in the June 3 primary, and the sky did not fall. Despite the tiresome and disproven claims by opponents that such laws cause wholesale voter disenfranchisement and are intended to suppress votes, Mississippi “sailed through” its first test of the new ID requirements, according to The Clarion Ledger, the newspaper of Jackson, Miss.

Any government-issued photo identification could be used in order to vote. The State of Mississippi provided free identification to anyone who did not have identification.

The article further reports:

Contrary to the claims of those who say large numbers of Americans don’t have an ID, Mississippi estimated that only 0.8 percent of Mississippians lacked an ID.  In fact, even that may have been an overestimate since the state had to issue only about 1,000 voter ID cards. All those who forgot their ID on Tuesday also could vote by an affidavit as long as they returned and showed an ID within five days.

The article concludes:

As Sid Salter from the Clarion Ledger put it, the voter ID law was a “non-event” and “voters expressed little, if any, inconvenience at the polls due to the new law.” So how is the new law being covered by the media? Instead of reporting that the voter ID law is “sailing through,” the mainstream media has instead elected to remain silent. As Hosemann said, “No news is good news.”

Just for your entertainment, I found a list of things the federal government,  some states and some businesses require identification to do at a website called usmessageboard.com:

1. Boarding an airplane
2. Writing a check
3. Cashing a check
4. Using a credit card
5. Driving a motor vehicle
6. Applying for a business license
7. Applying for permission to hold a protest or rally
8. Securing employment
9. Purchasing a house or real estate
10. Renting a domicile
11. Renting a motor vehicle
12. Purchasing a firearm (Includes BB guns)
13. Applying for a hunting license (waived for 16 and 17 year olds when their legal guardian provides a photo ID)
14. Applying for a fishing license (waived for 16 and 17 year olds when their legal guardian provides a photo ID)
15. Purchasing alcoholic beverages
16. Purchasing tobacco or products that contain nicotine
17. Purchasing a motor vehicle
18. Initial registration of a motor vehicle
19. Applying for a building permit
20. Receiving prescription medicine
21. Purchasing OTC medicine that contains pseudoephedrine
22. Serving on jury duty
23. Getting a bank account
24. Cash transactions of $5000.00 or greater
25. Sales tax exemption for people aged 80 and above

I suspect that most Americans have been involved in one or more or these transactions in their lifetime. Asking for a photo identification to vote is not any more intrusive than asking for a photo identification for any of the above activities.

Enhanced by Zemanta

American Voters Have More Common Sense Than Some Of Their Elected Officials

Posted on by

Hot Air posted a story today about voter identification laws in America. A Fox News poll released this week stated that 70 percent of American voters favor voter identification.

The article cites some results of the poll:

Seven in 10 registered voters are in favor of identification laws in order to root out fraud at the ballot box, according to a Fox News poll released this week.

The survey found majority support in every major demographic, including black voters and Democrats.

The 70 percent who support voter ID laws remains largely unchanged in the past few years. Another 27 percent believe the laws are unnecessary…

The survey found majorities of every demographic support the law. Ninety-one percent of Republicans offer support, and 66 percent of independents feel the same.

Fifty-five percent of Democrats support the laws, while 43 percent oppose them.

Opposition to the laws is highest among black respondents, but even there a bare majority, 51 percent, support them. Forty-six percent of African Americans oppose the laws.

Voter fraud impacts every voter. If you are an American citizen registered to vote, a fraudulent vote can easily cancel out your vote and rob you of the privilege of voting. Voter fraud benefits no one. Voter identification laws are one weapon against voter fraud. Rather than ‘infringing on your right to vote’ as many left-leaning politicians claim, voter identification laws protect your vote if you are voting legally.

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Voter Fraud?

Posted on by

Right now, North Carolina’s voter Identification law is making its way through the courts. A well-placed source told me recently that he expected the law to stand as is without a problem–when it was passed, court challenges were anticipated. The argument of those who do not support voter identification laws has always been that there is no voter fraud. I beg to differ.

PJ Media reported yesterday that there was massive voter fraud in the 2012 election in North Carolina.

The article cites some examples:

  • 765 voters with an exact match of first and last name, DOB and last four digits of SSN were registered in N.C. and another state and voted in N.C. and the other state in the 2012 general election.
  • 35,750 voters with the same first and last name and DOB were registered in N.C. and another state and voted in both states in the 2012 general election.
  • 155,692 voters with the same first and last name, DOB and last four digits of SSN were registered in N.C. and another state – and the latest date of registration or voter activity did not take place within N.C.

There is a 28-state crosscheck of voter roles that can be used to check for voter fraud. The numbers above are a result of that crosscheck. Imagine what the numbers would be if there were a 50-state crosscheck.

The article reports:

The findings, while large, leave open the question of just how widespread double voting might be since 22 states did not participate in the Interstate Crosscheck.

In addition to the above, the crosscheck found that more than 13,000 deceased voters remain on North Carolina’s rolls, and that 81 of them showed voter activity in their records after death.

If nothing else, these number make the case that voter identification laws are necessary if we are to preserve the integrity of the voting process.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Impact Of Voter Identification Laws On Voter Turnout

Posted on by

Yesterday National Review posted an article about the impact of voter ID laws on a recent election in Texas. The article quotes a a New York Times headline Thursday stating: “Texas’ Stringent Voter ID Law Makes a Dent at the Polls.” However, the facts cited in the article in the New York Times does not seem to support the headline.

There are four so-called victims of the voter ID law named in the article, but all of them were given the right to vote.

The article at National Review further quotes the New York Times article:

It does, however, note, “Officials also said there was little traffic at the offices set up by the state to provide free voter-ID documents for those without another approved form of identification.” So, in other words, the state had conscientiously prepared for the contingency of people needing voter-ID documents, and had set up offices to provide them for free. That’s a good thing, right? And what’s more, it turns out that there was really no problem after all. Contrary to the hysterical claims of those opposing voter-ID requirements, there apparently are not large numbers of Texas voters who lack identification.

The article concludes:

Texas’s secretary of state, who might know something about all this, is quoted belatedly as follows: “This was our first statewide election with a photo ID requirement in place, and it was smooth, secure and successful.” Somehow, that pithy summary was not quite up to snuff for the Times’s headline writer.

Consider the things you have to show identification for. If you want to enter any government building, you have to show identification. If you want to sign up for any government program, you have to show identification. If you want to board an airplane, you have to show identification. Isn’t voting at least as important as those activities?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Confusing The Issue By Adding Facts

Posted on by

There have been a lot of charges made lately by Democrats that Republicans want to suppress the black vote by passing voter identification laws. There is no mention of the fact that you need a driver’s license or such to enter a federal building, board a plane, case a check, etc., but that’s another story. But occasionally, when charging people with racism, inconvenient facts get in the way.

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air posted a story today showing that when Georgia became the first state in the nation to enact voter identification laws, the black and Hispanic voter turnout increased. From 2006 to 2010, voting by black and Hispanic voters increased dramatically, outpacing population growth for those groups over the same period.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution also posted an article today dealing with the same subject.

The The Atlanta Journal-Constitution article reports:

Under Georgia’s law, an in-person voter who arrives at the polls without a photo ID may cast a provisional ballot. The provisional ballot is counted only if the person returns with proper identification by the Friday following the election.

Records show that since 2008, 2,244 provisional ballots were cast by voters lacking photo ID. Of those, 658 returned with an ID and 1,586 did not — meaning their votes did not count.

That disturbs Laughlin McDonald, director of the Voting Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the original plaintiffs who challenged the law.

“If one person is deprived of their right to see their vote count, that’s a violation of the Constitution,” McDonald said.

I guess I have become a little cynical of late, but I am not thoroughly convinced that the 1,586 voters who chose not to return with identification were legal voters. Just a thought.

There is no way to prove that voter fraud was stopped by voter identification laws. However, we can show that the laws do not suppress votes. In terms of stopping fraud, one blatant example of voter fraud was found in Houston, Texas, by a group called True the Vote. (See rightwinggranny.com) When True the Vote examined the voters registered by a group called Houston Votes, a voter registration group headed by Sean Caddle, who had previously worked for the  Service Employees International Union (SEIU), they found that only 1,793 of the 25,000 registrations the group submitted appeared to be valid. I don’t know if 23,000 votes is enough to change the outcome of an election, but this clearly seems to be an example of voter fraud.

Anyway, hooray for voter identification laws–the keep our elections honest!

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

A Move Toward Honest Elections

Posted on by

Fox News is reporting today that a Wisconsin appeals court has upheld a law requiring voters to show a photo ID when voting.

However, as the article reports, we are not out of the woods yet:

Republican lawmakers passed voter photo ID requirements two years ago, saying the move was needed to combat election fraud. The league wasn’t the only group that challenged the law. The immigrant rights group Voces de la Frontera and the Milwaukee branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People also filed a lawsuit in Dane County Circuit Court, winning a permanent injunction blocking it. That injunction still stands, although the state Justice Department has asked the 2nd District Court of Appeals to review the case.

The American Civil Liberties Union and the League of United Latin American Citizens have filed separate lawsuits challenging the law in federal court. Those suits are still pending.

The article further reports:

One of the chief authors of the voter ID law, Rep. Jeff Stone, R-Greendale, began circulating a new bill last week that would let poor people opt out. That bill is aimed at allaying concerns that requirements in the original bill are too burdensome.

The law requires voters to show either a state-issued ID card, valid driver’s license, U.S. passport, a student ID that expires within two years or a military ID.

I am not impressed by the claim that obtaining a photo ID would be burdensome for some people. You need photo ID for a lot of things today, and a state program to provide photo ID’s for residents would actually help the residents. You can’t buy cigarettes or alcoholic beverages without an ID, you can’t get a book from the library without an ID, you can’t board a plane without an ID, and if you drive, your license is your ID. Having a photo ID is not a bad thing.

Enhanced by Zemanta

It Really Is Hard To Tell What Is True When You Read The Newspaper

Posted on by

On Friday Breitbart.com posted a fact-check on an Associated Press story that ran in various newspapers on July 10. The story gave examples of how voter identification requirements disenfranchise people.

Breitbart.com reports:

Baker started off with what seemed like a frustrating story about two elderly Indiana voters approaching 90 years old, Edward and Mary Weidenbener, who were unable to vote in Indiana’s May primary. Why? Supposedly because “they didn’t realize that state law required them to bring government photo IDs such as a driver’s license or passport.”

Then the reporter at Breitbart begins to look into the story. The Indiana law requiring identification had been in effect since 2006. Had they voted since then? It was also determined that both Weidenbeners had valid driver’s licenses and passports–either of which would have served as identification. The Weidenbeners also live within walking distance of their polling place–which means they could easily have gone home to get their identification.

For whatever reason, the Weidenbeners wound up casting a provisional ballot. They then claimed they weren’t told that they needed to show an ID to officials after the election in order for their provisional ballot to be counted.

The article further reports:

But the Indiana state form that is given to all provisional voters specifically informs them that they must appear before county election officials no later than noon on the second Friday after election day either with an ID or to sign an affidavit that they are exempt from the ID requirement because they are “indigent and unable to obtain proof of identification without the payment of a fee, or that you have a religious objection to being photographed.” The AP also neglected to mention that since the Weidenbeners are over 65, they could vote by absentee ballot without an ID.

It seems as if the Associated Press reporter either did not do his homework or chose to ignore the facts. Voter identification laws insure that every person’s vote counts once and that no person’s vote is cancelled out by an illegal vote. Voter identification laws do not prevent honest voters from voting–they prevent dishonest voters from voting.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Another Side Of The Story

Posted on by

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has done everything it can to prevent voter identification laws from being put into effect. A recent case in Virginia (rightwinggranny.com) regarding registration of pets, children and dead people showed the need for such laws. However, the DOJ has claimed that voter identification laws will suppress the vote and prevent people from voting. I agree that people who are entitled to vote should not hindered in the process, but evidently the people opposing voter id laws are not consistent in their views.

Breitbart.com posted an article today about an effort by Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party to limit the ability of military personnel to vote in Ohio.

The article reports:

Currently, Ohio allows the public to vote early in-person up until the Friday before the election. Members of the military are given three extra days to do so. While the Democrats may see this as “arbitrary” and having “no discernible rational basis,” I think it is entirely reasonable given the demands on servicemen and women’s time and their obligations to their sworn duty.

The Democrats are attempting to strike down the part of the law that gives the military extra days to vote.

In the past there have been incidents where the military were mailed their absentee ballots too late to return them in a timely fashion. In 2009 Congress enacted the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act to help resolve some of the problems. Hopefully, the Department of Justice cares as much about the votes of the military as it does about the votes of people who may not have identification.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Fight For The Integrity Of The Coming Election

Posted on by

This is article is based on two stories–one posted at PJ Media on Thursday and one posted in the New York Post on Friday. Both stories have to do with the Justice Department‘s (under Eric Holder) fight against verification of voter registration and voter identification laws.

The story at PJ Media deals with the Texas voter ID trial which wrapped up its closing arguments in federal court in Washington on Thursday. The case is headed to the Supreme Court.

The article at PJ Media reports:

The clown show saw another DOJ expert, paid thousands of dollars by you, the taxpayer, opine that vast numbers of Texans do not have photo identification.  On that list were President George Bush, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Phil Gramm.  These days that’s called an epic fail.

But the testimony got even more ridiculous.  San Antonio teenager Victoria Rodriguez travelled the whole way to Washington, D.C., for the clown show.  She testified that she did not have photo ID, even though she had the birth certificate to get a free one.  Her excuse?  She couldn’t find the time. Neither could her parents be bothered to drive her to get the ID.  One wonders if Victoria Rodriguez ever leaves the house, or when she does, if she has other priorities besides voting.  I’d suspect so.

One wonders how she got from Texas to Washington. If she flew, she needed a photo id to get on the plane!

The New York Post article quotes Attorney General Holder’s statement during his speech to the NAACP, “The arc of American history has always moved toward expanding the electorate.”

The article at the Post points out:

Yet that doesn’t mean it ought to include foreigners, felons or the deceased.

But how else to interpret the Justice Department’s war on in-state efforts to tighten voter-ID requirements and prevent ballot-box fraud?

Whether it’s trying to block Florida from purging its rolls of noncitizens or taking Texas to federal court over its new photo-ID requirement, Holder has signaled an unseemly coziness with potential fraud in pursuit of political advantage.

Voter fraud hurts everyone equally. It undermines the principle, “One man, one vote.” It dilutes the votes of the majority and all minorities. It destroys faith in the results of our elections. It is a disgrace to have an Attorney General who not only will not fight voter fraud, but whose actions seem to actually support it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

I Love Irony

Posted on by

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line posted the following:

Please note that the media will not be allowed in to the NAACP Convention to hear Attorney General Eric Holder speak unless they present a “government-issued photo I.D.” (such as a driver’s license) as well as valid media credentials.

Ok, let me get this right–media credentials are not enough to get in to hear Attorney General Eric Holder speak–you also need a government-issued photo I.D. in addition to your credentials. All those of us who want honest elections are asking for is one form of I.D. in order to vote–not two–and Eric Holder is fighting that. Does anyone else see the irony?

Enhanced by Zemanta

An Interesting Supporter Of Voter Identification

Posted on by
Congressman Artur Davis (D. Ala.) visiting tro...

Image via Wikipedia

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted an article about former Alabama congressman Artur Davis, an African-American Democrat, who has recently changed his position on voter identification laws.

The article reports:

“I’ve changed my mind on voter ID laws — I think Alabama did the right thing in passing one — and I wish I had gotten it right when I was in political office,” Davis wrote in an October 17 op-ed published in the Montgomery Advertiser.

“The truth is that the most aggressive contemporary voter suppression in the African American community, at least in Alabama, is the wholesale manufacture of ballots, at the polls and absentee, in parts of the Black Belt.”

Every person in America has probably heard a story from a friend or relative that they went to vote in an election and were told that they had already voted. Laws that require voters to show identification will greatly reduce that kind of voter fraud.

The article further reports:

Democratic activists say the new laws aren’t needed, and the the ID requirements will make it harder for poor people, Hispanics or African-Americans to vote. In Alabama, the new law “is about suppression, not protection,” Democratic Rep. Terri Sewell said in September.

“There’s really no evidence of reduced voter turnout,” said Republican Scott Gessler, Colorado’s Secretary of State, in an interview with The Daily Caller. “But that does really stop the left screaming about it because, in part, it is a wedge issue they use to get people to vote.”

Hopefully the American people have figured this out!

Enhanced by Zemanta