2014 Elections – Voter fraud or vote suppression?


WASHINGTON, October 30, 2014 — The standard talking point in objection to laws designed to prevent your vote from being invalidated by that of a dead individual, a convicted felon, an illegal migrant, or a Democrat elections apparatchik is that these laws have nothing to do with preventing fraud, but have everything to do with the ‘suppression’ of minority voters – Blacks, Hispanics, the elderly and the poor. Atypical of the rhetoric is this, from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU):

“Voting rights are under attack in this country as state legislatures nationwide pass voter suppression laws under the pretext of preventing voter fraud and safeguarding election integrity. These voter suppression laws take many forms, and collectively lead to significant burdens for eligible voters trying to exercise their most fundamental constitutional right.”

What you find out when you read further is that the ACLU bases this claim on nothing more than the estimate they provide that 11 percent of potential voters, “lack such ID, and would be required to navigate the administrative burdens to obtain it or forego the right to vote entirely.”  More specifically, the ACLU claims that 25 percent of voting age African-Americans lack required ID.

They, and the NAACP, Attorney General Eric Holder, Mother Jones, Rolling Stone and countless others, based the claim on a report from the Brennan Center for Justice situated on the campus of that hotbed of objectivity, NYU School of Law and sustained by George Soros’ Open Society foundation.

The Heritage Foundation in August of 2011 analyzed the Brennan Center report, finding it “both dubious in its methodology and results and suspect in its sweeping conclusions.” Heritage concluded that the Brennan Center used biased questioning of only 987 voters to obtain its estimates and that footnotes in the report issued in 2006, actually contradicted the Brennan Center’s findings.

The Democrats, with their cumulative efforts toward exponentially growing government, have created these very ‘administrative burdens’ through the bureaucracies they have so persistantly fostered.  And yet, once a potential Democrat voter may be required by the state to obtain something they should already have (for a myriad of practical reasons), the bureaucratic culture the Democrats have mothered, becomes a burden!

Another oft repeated canard is that there is no demonstrated proof of voter fraud. This is an assertion that defies rational comprehension.  It’s the same thing as shutting yourself in a room without windows and maintaining that there is no proof that the Sun came up in the morning. John Fund, of the Wall Street Journal discovered during research for an upcoming book on the subject, that:

“In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that up to three percent of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not citizens. While that might not seem like many, just three percent of registered voters would have been more than enough to provide the winning presidential vote margin in Florida in 2000.”

Speaking of Florida, Governor Rick Scott disclosed recently, “We’ve already confirmed that non-citizens have voted in past elections here in Florida. Now that we have the cooperation of the Department of Homeland Security, our state can use the most accurate citizenship database in the nation to protect the integrity of Florida’s election process.”

But the most amazing repudiation of the Democrat party narrative that asserts that voter fraud is marginal and a non-issue that is being exploited to “disenfranchise minority voters”, is an in-depth study conducted by Professors Jesse T. Richman of Old Dominion University, Gulshan A. Chattha, also of Old Dominion and David C. Earnest of George Mason University.

The authors of the study pulled their data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) organized by Harvard University. Its large number of observations (32,800 in 2008 and 55,400 in 2010) provide sufficient samples of the non-immigrant sub-population, with 339 non-citizen respondents in 2008 and 489 in 2010.
The conclusion of the study was summed up in its abstract:

In spite of substantial public controversy, very little reliable data exists concerning the frequency with which non-citizen immigrants participate in United States elections. Although such participation is a violation of election laws in most parts of the United States, enforcement depends principally on disclosure of citizenship status at the time of voter registration.

This study examines participation rates by non-citizens using a nationally representative sample that includes non-citizen immigrants. We find that some non-citizens participate in U.S. elections, and that this participation has been large enough to change meaningful election outcomes including Electoral College votes, and Congressional elections.

Non-citizen votes likely gave Senate Democrats the pivotal 60th vote needed to overcome filibusters in order to pass health care reform and other Obama administration priorities in the 111th Congress.

The authors provide the example of Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.), who won election in 2008 with a victory margin of 312 votes. Votes cast by just 0.65 percent of Minnesota non-citizens could account for this margin. Supporters of Franken’s opponent, Norm Coleman argued at the time that voting fraud took place, but were accused of fictionalizing such a factor.

Sherrilyn Ifill, president and director-counsel of NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund, called Texas’ law “an obstacle course designed to discourage voting”.

However, Anita MonCrief, noted ACORN whistleblower, now on the advisory board of the Black Conservatives Fund, joined some colleagues from True the Vote and interviewed Black voters in recent elections in Houston and Dallas, Texas.

She discovered that when she asked if being required to present an ID at the polling station was a hardship, black voters were almost insulted by the question. The typical response was, “Are you kidding me, what are they talking about? They think we don’t use state identification on a daily basis? I’ve never heard of anything so absurd.”

‘Voter suppression’ just doesn’t stand up to factual examination. Georgia has had a voter ID law since 2007. A study of Georgia election data conducted by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution found that participation of black voters rose by 44 percent from 2006 to 2010. For Hispanics, the increase for the same period was 67 percent.

So apparently it is not citizens being handicapped from voting that the Democrat party is concerned with, when it comes to Voter ID legislation. It is that ever replenishing stream of dead and illegal voters that they rely on to put them over the top in a tight election.

Had the Democrat party not had the longstanding history of efforts, many successful, in gaming the national election system, Voter ID laws might not be the issue they are. As things stand, it’s only reasonable to provide voters with confidence that their votes will not be nullified by voter fraud.

Join Communities Digital News 2014 MidTerm Election night Scribble Live chat and launch the Blog Talk Radio Critical Conversation here, November 4, 8:00pm Eastern

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 Communities Digital News

• The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the editors or management of Communities Digital News.

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.