What Is the Truth about Voter ID?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns voter identification laws. Most Americans understand that Republicans/conservatives generally support strict ID laws, while Democrats/liberals generally peddle lies about ID laws. The biggest lies peddled by opponents to ID laws claim that they discriminate against African Americans because the laws suppress their vote. At the same time, they rally against the idea that strict ID laws protect the integrity as well as the security of elections.

In an article posted at The Daily Signal, Hans von Spakovsky and Joseph Sturdy wrote that we should “Trust the science” and understand that “Voter ID laws aren’t discriminatory and don’t suppress anyone’s vote.” 

For years, liberals have peddled fabricated claims about voter ID requirements, asserting that they give an advantage to the Republican Party by “discriminating against African Americans’ and suppressing their vote. They pooh-pooh the notion that such laws protect the integrity and security of elections.

Not only do black Americans not believe that voter laws discourage or prevent them from voting, but in 2019 a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research – based on turnout data from 2008 to 2018 – concluded that voter ID laws “have no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation.”

The authors quoted another study that was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The referenced study “once again has categorically refuted the myth propagated by the Left that voter ID laws, as the study says, place a ‘disproportionate burden’ on ‘historically disadvantaged groups such as the poor and people of color” and therefore hurt candidates of the Democratic Party.” The researchers of this study reported that they “studied the ‘electoral fortunes’ of both political parties in ‘races at the state level (state legislatures and governorships) and federal level (United States Congress and president) during 2003 to 2020.”

The study concluded that the first voter ID laws actually “produced a Democratic advantage, which weakened to near zero after 2012” so that today, voter ID laws have “negligible average effects.” That is academic-speak for saying voter ID laws have no effect on the ability of the candidates of either the Republican or Democratic parties to get elected.

In other words, voter security benefits both parties and all Americans.

The authors state that the new study supports the previous study. “The researchers’ conclusions emphatically demonstrate that Republican support for an issue doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s bad for Democrats.”

In fact, in contrast to the myth of voter suppression, the study found that both parties saw an increase in voter turnout after implementation of voter ID laws….

This study rejects the narrative spewed for years about the one-party benefit of election security measures. The facts reject the notion that Americans are too dumb to understand electoral security. The facts support voter ID, and the people do too.

So, trust the science: Secure your elections.

Why Is Voter ID Important to Free and Fair Elections?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the right to vote and voter suppression (or lack thereof). Most Americans aged 18 years and over have the right to vote unless they are felons. Race, age, sex, gender identity, religion, or any other category cannot stop this right. One voter should equal one vote.

After the problems of the 2020 presidential election, the State of Georgia reworked their voting laws – all states do their own thing on the laws. Democrats were up in arms at the changes. President Joe Biden condemned the changes and called them “Jim Crow 2.0.” Stacy Abrams and other Democrats claimed that there would be “voter suppression” and “election subversion” in Georgia.

Neither voter suppression nor election subversion seems to be the case. Fred Lucas at The Daily Signal reported that “as of Thursday morning, 1.05 million early in-person voters had shown up at the polls for Georgia’s Senate runoff. The pace ‘far exceeds the number of voters who cast ballots in the runoff of 2018 and 2016,’ according to the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office.” 

You may ask what was so bad about Georgia’s new law(s). I checked the website of the Georgia Secretary of State and found this statement: “Georgia law requires photo identification when voting, either in person or absentee. It’s the way your county ensures it’s you casting your ballot and not someone who isn’t eligible to vote.” 

You may also ask what type of identification is acceptable for in-person voting. There are seven different types of identification that are acceptable: (1) Any valid state or federal government-issued photo ID, including a free ID card issued by your county registrar’s office or the Georgia Department of Driver Services; (2) A Georgia driver’s license, even if expired; (3) Student ID from a Georgia public College or University; (4) Valid employee photo ID from any branch department, agency, or entity of the U.S. Government, Georgia, or any county, municipality, board, authority, or other entity of this state; (5) Valid U.S. passport ID; (6) Valid U.S. military photo ID containing a photograph of the voter, and (7) Valid tribal photo ID containing a photograph of the voter.

If requesting an absentee ballot, a voter “must include the number from your driver’s license.” Any voter without a driver’s license could “include the number from your state-issued identification card.” Voters without driver’s license or state-issued identification, could submit a photocopy of any of the items listed in the above paragraph OR current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check, or other government document.

Why Biden, Abrams, or any other Democrat disliked these photo ID requirements is as much your guess as mine. They seem to me to be quite lenient – far more lenient than I believe is necessary. What American does not have a photo ID card? They are needed at medical offices, Social Security offices, airlines, banks, schools, and many other places. I like the idea that Georgia requires ID for every voter whether voting absentee or in person.

I suggest that Democrats did not want photo ID laws in Georgia because personal identification hinders voter fraud. It is difficult to claim that dead people are voting if the voter has to prove their identification!

Defending Voter ID Laws

                The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns the need to defend voter identification laws nationwide in order to protect the vote of eligible voters. Americans are required to show identification often for a variety of purposes. We show our ID to enter any federal building, to obtain fishing and hunting licenses and driving licenses, to get medical treatment, at airports, to withdraw money at banks and credit unions, and for numerous other experiences. Even though we use IDs often in our normal lives, liberals and progressives consider it an imposition to require an ID before voting. I personally find the whole situation an interesting study.

                Beverly Hallberg of The Daily Signal posted an interesting article titled “A Simple, 3-Step Approach to Defending Voter ID Laws” Hallberg states in her article that we “have solid logic on our side” when we support ID laws. She suggests three simple steps to use when in a discussion with anyone opposed to voter ID laws.

                Step 1 is to seek common ground. Everyone can agree that “we want free and fair elections” and “certain policies” must be in place to “safeguard the election process.” She continues, “Everyone has to go through the same process to obtain a valid ID, which makes the ID the great equalizer….” Just as rules are in place to require voters to be at least 18 years old and U.S. citizens, “It only seems reasonable that those seeking to cast a vote should have to show a valid ID to prove they meet the requirements assigned.”

                Step 2 is to cite examples using numbers and anecdotes. One example is citing the number of dead people who vote year after year. “The Daily Signal recently reported on the voter fraud taking place in California. An `investigation revealed that 265 deceased persons voted in Southern California, 215 of them in Los Angeles County.”

                Step 3 is to use the words that matter. “Those who oppose voter ID laws often feel they have ownership of the `emotional’ or `compassionate’ side of the debate. Use their language to help them see why this isn’t so. Not only are voter ID laws perfectly fair, they actually safeguard equal opportunity. Those who meet the requirements to vote should be allowed to vote – that’s fair and it safeguards the equal opportunity of all citizens.”

                We must take steps to prevent “fraud and abuse” in order to guarantee that every eligible vote counts without being “stolen or diluted.” Hallberg states that “Voting is not only a great honor, it is a great responsibility that should be taken seriously. So many brave men and women have died fighting for the right we have to vote. Showing an ID is the least we can do to honor their sacrifice and carry out our civic duty responsibly.”

Voter ID Laws

                The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns Voter ID. Although the U.S. Constitution itself does not strictly guarantee the right to vote, four Amendments guarantee that the right will not be denied on account of race, color, previous condition of slavery, sex, failure to pay taxes, or age.

                Amendment 15, states, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

                Amendment 19 states, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

                Amendment 24 states, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.”

                Amendment 26 states, “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”

                The right to vote is protected in various places, but there are no guarantees against voter fraud. Several states have tried to enact laws to protect against voter fraud, but most of the laws – or at least parts of them – have been deemed as unconstitutional by liberal judges and courts of appeal.

                Democrats are quick to state that there is no voter fraud, but a case in Alabama proves otherwise. “The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals upheld a conviction of a Dothan woman who was found guilty of 24 counts of absentee ballot fraud on Friday….”  The woman was one of three “who were involved in a fraud during the 2013 Dothan municipal election.” 

                The attempts of several states to write laws to protect voter integrity are discussed by Josh Siegel at The Daily Signal. He writes that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a 2005 Indiana voter ID law, but other laws have not passed so easily. A federal judge blocked North Dakota’s voter ID law. Another federal judge struck down parts of Wisconsin’s 2011 laws for voter ID and early voting. A federal appeals court overturned North Carolina’s 2013 laws for voter ID and other election provisions. Another federal appeals court weakened Texas’s 2011 voter ID law.

                The Indiana voter ID law was written more than a decade ago and previous to a mass effort to protect voter ID. Connie Lawson, then a state legislator and now Indiana’s Secretary of State, told The Daily Signal, “When we wrote the legislation, we did everything we could do to make elections honest and make sure everyone can participate in the election process…. So we added protections [against disenfranchisement] that maybe some of the other laws don’t have. And now, our law has stood the test of time. It passed the test with the U.S. Supreme Court, and it’s been in place for over a decade now.”

                As for the other court cases in other states, Hans von Spakovsky, a fellow at The Heritage Foundation, said that this “is probably about the best deal Texas could expect to get given the circumstances and personalities in the case.” He further explained, “[T]he parties have agreed that Texas voters who don’t have one of the acceptable photo IDs under the statute will still be able to vote if they: `present a valid voter registration certificate, a certified birth certificate, a current utility bill, a bank statement, a government check, a paycheck, or any other government document that displays the voter’s name and an address and complete and sign a reasonable impediment declaration.’ … Texas actually managed to get better terms than either North or South Carolina since, in addition to completing a `reasonable impediment’ declaration, the voter will have to show some kind of document such as a utility bill or bank statement with his name and address.”

                The Texas compromise should eliminate dead voters and possibly voters who really live somewhere else. It sounds to me that other states should study the Indiana voter ID law and the compromise in Texas. There are ways to eliminate most voter fraud and still not stifle the right of any American to vote.

Voter ID Laws

                In 2008 the United States Supreme Court declared in a 6-3 decision that voter ID is constitutional.  Since this court decision, thirty-four states have adopted some form of ID laws.  Pat McCrory, governor of North Carolina, signed a voter ID bill into law in August 2013.  Critics of the law claimed it would suppress minority turnout, but the law actually increased black voter turnout.

                On July 7 the U.S. Department of Justice will ask a U.S. District Court for an injunction against the North Carolina law before the November 2014 election.  The Obama administration claims the law makes it more difficult for minorities to vote, but the facts seem to prove the opposite point.

                The Blaze published the results of a Judicial Watch commissioned a study that seems to prove the claims to be bogus.  “Comparing May 4, 2010 North Carolina primary election data with the May 14, 2014 primary data, the study found that voter turnout increased across the board, but particularly among black voters, where it increased by 29.5 percent, compared to an increase of white voter turnout of 13.7 percent.  The findings were based on Census Bureau data and public names who signed the voter rolls.”

                In addition to requiring identification to vote, North Carolina and thirty-seven other states do not allow same-day voter registration.  According to Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, “The recent election in North Carolina shows that the Obama administration is engaged in a race-baiting canard when it suggests that voting integrity measures suppress minority….  It is high time that the Obama administration comes into line with the majority of the American people who want to strengthen rather than weaken ballot box integrity.”

                What do you think?  In a world where we must show picture identification to open a bank account, to get a mammogram, to get on an airplane, to register for Medicare and Social Security, and dozens of other places, do you believe requiring identification to vote presents a hardship to people?  I do not.  I am grateful that states are standing up to the federal government and passing laws to require voters to prove they are who they say they are.  

Hypocrisy

                Hypocrisy is defined as pretending to have virtues, moral standards, religious beliefs, personal standards, etc. without having personal behavior that conforms to those standards or beliefs.  A hypocrite claims to have desirable or acceptable behavior in public but acts differently in their private life.  An example of a hypocrite is a person who claims to have a strong and happy marriage but has a mistress on the side.

                I recently read about the “Moral March on Raleigh” that took place in North Carolina.  The March was coordinated by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP).  The organizers called for the march and rally because they were angry with policies approved by the GOP in 2013; these policies included a stricter voter I.D. law.

                The organizers wanted the march and rally to be “conducted in a peaceful and non-violent manner and issued a list of important do’s and don’ts for the marchers.  About two-thirds of the way down the list is this important counsel:  “Do bring photo identification (driver’s license, passport, or other valid photo i.d.) with you and keep it on your person at all times.” 

                This march apparently has been held on the second Saturday of February every year since 2007 “for a `mass people’s assembly’ to protest what it views as unfair public policies and injustices.  Among the five fundamental demands for this year’s march, according to The Charlotte (N.C.) Post:  “Protect and expand voting rights for people of color, women, immigrants, the elderly and students to safeguard fair democratic representation.”

                Governor Pat McCrory signed some major election reforms in August 2013, which included strict photo voter I.D. as well as changes to early voting, same-day registration and pre-registration.  The US Human Rights Network considers these reforms to be “immoral and unconstitutional policies” signed by the Governor.

                The first word I thought of when I read the above information was hypocrite.  I understood that the reason why liberals do not like stricter voter I.D. laws is because the requirement to have photo I.D. is too difficult for people to obtain.  If people – young and old – have photo I.D.s for the march and rally, why can’t they use the same I.D. to vote?  Is it easier to get photo I.D. to march than it is to get photo I.D. to vote?  How can people have photo I.D. for marches and not for voting?

Voter Fraud

                    Over the past several months, several states have been attempting to combat voter fraud by clearing their registries of illegal voters.  Democrat and the Department of Defense have been fighting the effort.  The State of Florida took the matter to court and won a victory.

                    According to Charles Babington of the Associated Press, "… the federal government has agreed to let Florida use a law enforcement database to challenge people's right to vote if they are suspected of not being U.S. citizens.

                    "The agreement, made in a letter to Florida Gov. Rick Scott's administration … grants the state access to a list of resident non-citizens maintained by the Homeland Security Department.  The Obama administration had denied Florida's request for months but relented after a judge ruled in the state's favor in a related voter-purge matter."

                    Republicans consider this decision to be a "victory" in "their broad-based fight over voter eligibility, an issue that could play a big role in the White House race.  That's especially true in pivotal states such as Florida, Colorado, Nevada, and North Carolina…. 

                    "The Homeland Security decision may affect places beyond Florida, because Colorado and other states have asked for similar access to the federal database."

                    The Obama administration fought the State's right to purge voter rolls and refused to work with them.  "After a judges recently ruled against federal efforts to stop Florida's aggressive voter-list review, Homeland Security agreed to work on details for how the state can access the federal SAVE database - Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements - to challenge registered voters suspected of being noncitizens.

                    "Florida has agreed that it can challenge voters only if the state provides a `unique identifier,' such as an `alien number,' for each person in question.  Alien numbers generally are assigned to foreigners living in the country legally, often with visas or other permits such as green cards.

                    "Unless they become naturalized citizens, however, they cannot vote."

                    Florida Governor Rick Scott considers this decision to be "a significant victory for Florida and for the integrity of our election system."  He claimed that "Access to the SAVE database will ensure that noncitizens do not vote in future Florida elections."

It seems to me that Florida and other states may still have a big problem because "the agreement will prevent Florida from using only a name and birthdate to seek federal data about a suspected noncitizen on voter rolls.

"The SAVE list is unlikely to catch illegal immigrants in any state who might have managed to register to vote because such people typically would not have an alien number."

Florida has removed 86 noncitizens from the voter rolls since April 11 and found that "more than half of them had voted in previous elections."  Election officials in Florida were asked on Saturday to restart the review; Florida Secretary of State Ken Detzner said that the review will "include a carefully calibrated matching process" between driver and voter data in the State "before any records are verified through SAVE."

Other states have sought for years to access the federal database.  In 2005 the feds told Washington State that "they saw no way to compare voters and the Homeland Security information.

"Colorado has sought the federal data for a year.  Colorado, which has a Democratic governor but a Republican secretary of state, Scott Gessler, has identified about 5,000 registered voters that it wants to check against the federal information.

"Officials in the politically competitive states of Ohio, Michigan, New Mexico and Iowa - all led by GOP governors - are backing his efforts."

I do not understand how the efforts of the federal government can be approved by anyone.  What American citizen who loves their nation and wants to maintain the American way of life can condone any practices that keep unqualified people on the voting registers of the nation.  Nearly everyone in our nation has some kind of picture identification, but the Democrats are fighting against requirements of showing a picture ID in order to vote.  The Obama administration has been fighting the States about purging voter rolls.

I want every eligible voter to have an opportunity to vote, but I do not want my vote to be cancelled by an ineligible vote!  I am grateful to learn that there are governors, secretaries of state, and judges who are willing to aid in the fight against voter fraud!