"...no need to get a fake ID just to vote"

[WhiskeyGirl]

"...no need to get a fake ID just to vote" 

Voter Fraud

by David Ziemer

October 17, 2008

 
In one scene in the 1985 movie, “The Breakfast Club,” the high school burnout, John Bender, asks the nerd, Brian Johnson, why he needs a fake ID. “So I can vote,” Brian answers.

The answer is rich with irony for those of us in Wisconsin. The movie is set outside of Chicago, Illinois, where, in 1960, they elevated vote fraud from simple avocation to art form.

Here, in Wisconsin, many think such things don’t even exist. Yet, the reality is, had the young Mr. Johnson lived in Wisconsin, he’d have no need to get a fake ID just to vote.

He could have registered, and voted, without ever once being required to prove eligibility.

How do I know?

Because in November 1984, I voted for president (and senator, and an assortment of other offices). That’s not so unusual … except that I did not turn 18 until December 1984.

“How could that happen?” you ask.

It was easy. Some group set up a voter registration booth on the campus of the University of Wisconsin, and the worker asked me if I wanted to register. He never asked for any proof of eligibility.

A week later I went to the polls and cast my vote. Again, no proof of age was required.

I had rather forgotten the incident until earlier this week, when I was in Madison. Voter registration was everywhere.

I assume that these voter registrars are paid by ACORN or one of their myriad subsidiary corporations.

When I voted illegally in 1984, I did not consider myself part of any voter fraud effort. I just figured that, if the government is this inept, why not?

Recent testimony at a federal legislative subcommittee hearing indicates the problem continues today.

Curiously, I never see voter registration here in downtown Milwaukee during the work day. I suspect it is because ACORN and its subsidiaries fear that people who work and pay taxes are unlikely to support their desired candidates.

But on a college campus (or jail), where the potential voters are beneficiaries of government, rather than its financiers, that is where the registration efforts occur.

(snip)

My illegal vote could have been easily prevented, if only Wisconsin required some form of identification to vote. But current law, as then, requires none.

Illegal votes could be prevented with the same minimal precautions we employ to prevent underage persons from buying alcohol or tobacco.

This is not “disenfranchisement.” It’s the bare minimum required to prevent the state and our election process from being the laughingstock of high school and underage college students.

http://www.wislawjournal.com/article.cfm/2008/10/20/Voter-Fraud

[crazybabyborg]

Since 1997, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the legality of Photo ID requirements. Since then, there hasn't been a single State move toward the requirement. It's an issue frozen in partisanship. The few it could effect could be resolved with little effort. If our public funding that goes to Acorn were diverted to maintain provision for registration and absentee voting in Nursing homes, and home bound citizns, etc. and most importantly to create free photo ID and maintenance of ONE database, then messes like we are seeing could be avoided. I'm at the point that I believe the blocking of such common sense measures are purposefully to allow opportunity to commit fraud.

Supreme Court upholds photo ID voting law
Mon Apr 28, 2008 5:04pm EDT
By James Vicini

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court on Monday upheld a tough state law requiring voters to show photo identification, a decision critics say could keep some blacks, poor people and other traditional Democratic supporters from voting in the November election.

Resolving a partisan political battle, the country's high court voted 6-3 to reject a legal challenge by Democrats that Indiana's toughest-in-the-nation voter identification law would deter minorities, the elderly and others from casting ballots.

The main opinion agreed with Republican supporters that the law was necessary to prevent voter fraud and safeguard public confidence in the integrity of elections. The Bush administration supported the law.

The court handed down the ruling just eight days before the crucial Indiana presidential primary election featuring Democratic candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. If elected in November, Obama would be the first black U.S. president, while Clinton would be the first female U.S. president.

"The effect of the loss ... will begin to be felt next week when Indiana holds its presidential primary using the voter ID law the court has just upheld," said Nathaniel Persily, an election law expert at Columbia University in New York.

The decision could have broad national significance because more than 20 states have adopted voter identification laws and other states are considering similar legislation.

The law requires a government-issued photo ID such as a driver's license to vote in federal, state and local elections.

Indiana Secretary of State Todd Rokita, a Republican, said the timing of the ruling was good because it was the first time since 1968 that Indiana's presidential primary had mattered and voter registrations had surged this year.

In seven elections since Indiana put the law into place, the requirement "hasn't been an issue," based on complaints to his office, Rokita said.

Reaction to the ruling split along political lines.

"This decision not only confirms the validity of photo ID laws but it completely vindicates the Bush Justice Department" when it approved a similar Georgia law, said former department official Hans von Spakovsky.

Democrats sharply criticized the ruling.

DENIES A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

"Denying a fundamental right -- the right to vote -- because a person is indigent, lacks a birth certificate or has no access to a vehicle goes against America's better values," Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont said.

Angela Ciccolo of the NAACP civil rights group said the law would have its greatest impact on voters who are poor, elderly, belong to racial minorities or have disabilities.

The lead opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, held the evidence in the record did not support an attack now on the law's validity.

Three other court members -- conservative Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, concurred in the judgment and issued a separate opinion that the law should be upheld because its overall burden was minimal and justified.

Stevens wrote that states had a "valid interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process." He said voter fraud "could affect the outcome of a close election."

He said the law may place a small burden on a limited number of people -- the elderly born out-of-state who may have difficulty in getting the required documents, the homeless or people with a religious objection to being photographed.

Stevens said politics may have been a factor in adopting the law but that alone did not make it unconstitutional. His opinion left open the possibility of future legal challenges by specific voters.

Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer dissented. Souter said the law threatened to impose major burdens on the voting rights of tens of thousands of Indiana residents, especially the poor and the elderly.

(Additional reporting by Thomas Ferraro and Andrew Stern in Chicago; Editing by David Alexander and Peter Cooney)



http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSWAT00940020080428?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=10112