Democrats For Election Fraud Posted 07:02 PM ET
Suffrage: We're used to Democrats' trotting out the Republicans-are-racists trope whenever they want to score a political point. But even we can't believe they're doing it to block reasonable protections against election fraud.
This week, Maryland's Rep. Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat in the House, claimed that "we are witnessing a concerted effort to place new obstacles in front of minorities, low-income families and young people who seek to exercise their right to vote."
Earlier in the month, NAACP president Benjamin Jealous declared that "this is the greatest assault on voting rights, happening right now, that we have seen since the dawn of Jim Crow."
It all sounds so menacing. Except that these liberals are excoriating Republicans for supporting what the vast majority of Americans agree is a perfectly reasonable requirement for voters — that they show a photo ID before casting a ballot.
This year, three states enacted photo ID laws, and three others toughened their existing laws, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In all, 31 states now require voters to show some sort of ID, with 15 requiring a photo ID.
The requirement is hugely popular with the public — a Rasmussen survey this June found that 75% of likely voters back photo ID laws, including 63% of Democrats — which is hardly surprising given that citizens routinely have to produce a picture ID to board a plane, buy alcohol and any number of other mundane tasks.
Plus, the states offer free photo IDs to those who can't afford them and let people cast provisional ballots if they don't bring their IDs on Election Day.
Does this strike anyone as unreasonable?
Well, to liberals intent on politicizing everything under the sun these days, voter ID laws are merely a Republican ploy to suppress turnout among those most likely to vote Democratic — namely blacks, Hispanics and the poor. They point to a study by the Brennan Center for Justice that claims the requirement could disenfranchise 5 million eligible voters.
But a Heritage Foundation analysis of that study found it to be seriously biased and fundamentally flawed. It notes that there's no concrete evidence whatsoever that ID laws discriminate or suppress turnout.
In fact, turnout in Indiana and Georgia — the first two states to enact strict photo ID laws — climbed sharply after that requirement went into effect.
What's more, legal challenges have failed because, as Heritage's election expert and former FEC commissioner Hans von Spakovsky noted, "The plaintiffs were unable to produce a single individual, much less 'millions' of voters, who would be unable to vote because of the requirement to show a photo ID."
And when the Supreme Court upheld Indiana's voter ID law by a vote of 6-3 in 2008, liberal Justice John Paul Stevens concluded that asking for an ID "does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote."
Liberals also make the curious claim that voter ID laws aren't needed because there isn't any evidence of "widespread" election fraud.
What are these people arguing? That a little voter fraud is perfectly OK? That we don't need to take steps to secure the sanctity of the voting booth until the election process completely breaks down?
Whatever happened to the Democrats' insistence that we had to count every vote and that every vote counted? Surely they understand that even one case of fraud is unacceptable, since it denies another citizen his right to be heard.
In any case, the liberal argument that election fraud is a myth merely ignores the many reports of fraud over the years. Can you spell Acorn?
Keeping elections honest is a fundamental responsibility of our government officials. It's too bad Democrats would rather play crass racial politics than uphold this principle.
|
