VOTE FRAUD: Vir. Dem’s Field Director Conspires to Commit Voter Fraud, Forge Docs

Jim Moran is an extremist, liberal Congressman from the state of Virginia and it appears that his campaign office thinks perpetrating vote fraud is a very good idea. So good that Moran’s campaign field director, his son Patrick, conspired with the undercover camera of James O’Keefe to commit vote fraud through forged documents and other violations of the law.

This is pretty blatant. If this guy is doing this so easily, how often is this going on in every other Democrat campaign office? You can bet its a daily occurrence.

Key points:

The reporter goes to Moran, says he has a list of 100 people who haven’t voted, and asked for names of people that could help him pull it off. Moran discusses creating utility bills in Word. From pages 3-4 of the transcript:

Reporter: Do you know two people … Can you give me two names to help us with that? Two names of people who are fervent, who maybe I can trust?

Moran: I don’t know. It’s going to be tough. It’s going to be tough with the … you got to stuff that card.

Reporter: Okay. He actually double voted in 2008 and got away with it.

Moran: Did he?

Reporter: Yeah.

Moran: (Laughs) So it’s going to be with the new voter ID laws as well…

Reporter: He’s got a few in D.C. He’s got some in Maryland as well.

Moran: And I imagine he’ll be using…

Reporter: You and me.

Moran: Yeah. But like utility bills or something like that. He’ll need bills. He’ll need something with the name and their address on it.

Reporter: He’s telling me if they’re going to be hesitant to enforce it. He’s telling me it’s a law but there’s law and then there’s enforcement.

Moran: And there will be a lot of voter protection. So if they just have the utility bill or a statement (inaud.) will obviously be tough … but they can fake a utility bill with ease.

Reporter: How would you do that?

Moran: I mean I would just buy (inaud.)

Reporter: Microsoft Word and type it up.

Moran: Yeah, something like that. I don’t know, but that’s tough man. I mean, like … I feel like all the energy that you’re going to be putting into this, I think it would be much better suited finding out with just the in place GOTB (ph.) stuff, because all that stuff you’re kind of getting people that haven’t voted in a long time and that energy that you’d be putting in in trying to like ensure that it went through without a hitch and the risk to your name, I feel like plug it in and going to some underperforming districts.

There’s a push down in Mount Vernon and like Prince William and places like that where OFA is trying to get it going, but they, you know, it’s largely minority population, people that just haven’t been plugged in and people that have been plugged in like Republican districts and they’re just not enthused.

And he straight up says “you’ll have to forge” a utility bill in order to comply with the new voter ID laws. From page 9-10:

Reporter: If we get some people to help us. We won’t have to go, maybe someone else will and we’ll scale up elsewhere. But he’s got name and address, that’s the best bet?

Moran: Well, no, you need … it has to be … look at the law.

Reporter: Okay.

M: But it has to be like a utility bill or something like that. So you have to forge it.

Then, he encourages them to pretend to be pollsters and call the people they’re planning on voting for ahead of time. From page 14:

R: Pretend to be a pollster?

M: Yeah. Do you guys plan on voting, on November 6th? And go on from there and then depending on their answer just … if they say yes, then go through and just find out if they’re Dems or what. (Noise) (Background conversations) (Walking)

R: Call first? Call them? Okay. That can get pretty awkward if they’ve already early voted, really awkward. Be ready to run.

M: (Laughs) (Background conversations) I respect your initiative.

R: I’m glad you respect it.

Ohio: Sen. Sherrod Brown is Stifling Big Government's Best Friend
Polling Is a Messy Business
  • GarandFan

    Hey! Ask any Democrat, there’s no such thing as voter fraud!

    • Carl

      Use logic (a stretch, I know)….

      Can you really steal an election through voter fraud at the polls?

      Wouldn’t you have to have thousand and thousands and thousands of people committing fraud in order to move an election result in a way that matters? Yes.

      So why would someone risk jail to steal one vote? Seriously? Would anyone risk prison in order to have the vote total count change by 1 fraudulent vote?

      At that’s the logic the people who ARE stealing elections count on. They count on enough idiots who hate minorities who will vote for asshole Republicans who get into office and promote voter suppression efforts that make it easier for the rich to buy elections.


      • GarandFan

        Why don’t you ask Al Franken? And there was a piece in the news the other day about buying votes with pizzas and T-shirts.

        So lets remove ALL doubt and insist on Voter ID.

        IIRC, in Minnesota, one person can “vouch” for up to 15 people at a polling station. “Yep, I know him, he lives up the street.” Yeah, that’s a real secure way to vote.

      • EricSteel

        Obviously, you didn’t watch the video. The scheme was to have one guy running around fraudulently voting for 100 people with a Democrat campaign official who is the son of the candidate, giving advice on how to make it work.

    • TomInCali

      Correct, there isn’t an meaningful voter fraud. Having O’Keefe running around saying “I’m going to commit voter fraud!” doesn’t change that.

      • GarandFan

        “there isn’t an meaningful voter fraud”

        Keep your head up your ass, and you won’t find any.

        1) People in central Florida (oddly enough, Republicans) getting “official” letters telling them they’re ineligible to vote.
        2) People in one county in N.C. finding that the voting machines automatically register a Romney vote as a vote for Obama. Explanation ‘the voting machine wasn’t calibrated’. Huh? You mean it wasn’t checked before being put in operation?
        3) Like I said earlier, ask Al Franken. A tight race, still in dispute at the end, until “suddenly” a whole car trunk of votes is “found” by a poll worker who “forgot” about them. “Found” a whole week after the election. And you’ll never guess who most of those votes were for.

        • TomInCali

          You forgot people in Florida, Virginia, and Indiana getting phone calls telling them they can vote by phone and not need to go to the polls. People in Ohio getting letters from the Republican voting board telling them the wrong date and location for voting. A Republican group planning to train up to 1 million people to go to voting places in low-income areas and demand voters show them ID. Billboard intimidation, employer intimidation, etc.

          But none of that is in-person voting fraud, which is simply just not a problem in this country.

          • EricSteel

            Your argument has one fundamental flaw. You can’t prove in-person voter fraud if there is no effort made to prove eligibility. Its like making the police not able to use any tools to measure the speed of cars, since there is no evidence of speeding there are no speeders on the highway.

          • TomInCali

            Huh. Funny, then, that they have been able to prove it, in the rare instances when it happens. And just to head off the “but that’s only the ones who get caught!” argument, even if it was 10 times greater, it would still amount to only about .002 percent of the vote.

          • EricSteel

            What are you talking about? .002% of the vote?

            The 2000 Presidential Election Bush v Gore, boiled down to a difference of 537 votes out of 101,455,899 total votes or 0.000005 % of the vote.

            The 2008 Senate election, Franken v Coleman, boiled down to a difference of 312 votes out of 2,862,451 total votes or a difference of 0.0001 % of the vote.

            The 2004 Governor election, Gregoire v. Rossi, boiled down to 129 votes out of 2,746,593 total votes, or a difference of 0.00004 % of the vote.
            So there are three examples of important close elections whose outcome was decided by far less than 0.002% of the vote. It doesn’t take much to swing a close election.
            Steps have been taken by supporters of voter id laws to address the concerns of the opponents of voter id laws, such as making identification cards free, expanding the number of acceptable id cards, and public awareness.
            I have yet to hear from the opponents of voter id laws with any compromises to address the concerns of voter fraud.

          • TomInCali

            I have yet to hear from the opponents of voter id laws with any compromises to address the concerns of voter fraud.

            There is far more voter fraud with respect to absentee ballots. We have yet to hear from opponents of voter fraud how to address these concerns. Likely because Democrats tend to vote more in person, and Republicans tend to vote more by absentee.

          • EricSteel

            So you admit that voter fraud does exist. Do the Democrats have any proposals to address any kind of voter fraud, whether absentee or in person? I haven’t heard of any. Have you?
            Since you agree that voter fraud does exist, why are you supporting the party who is blocking ALL attempts to fix it vs. the party that is trying to do something? That’s not very progressive of you.

          • Vagabond661

            The group who has been consisently disenfranchised is the military.

  • 914

    “Jim Moron is an extremist, liberal Congressman from the state of Virginia and it appears that his campaign office thinks perpetrating vote fraud is a very good idea.”

    Fixed your typo! sarc

  • JWH

    I have very little patience for James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas … but I’m curious about this. Moran is my congressman …

    • Rdmurphy42

      I can understand that someone exposing the machinations of democrats would upset you, yes.

  • macofromoc

    most common words in Dem. circles – “You have the right to remain silent…..”

    It’s always surprising how these “really-really smart” people get punked by O’Keefe on a pretty reguluar basis. He/they always seems to get them to trip over their own egos. They remind me of stupid bass who strike at the shiny lure.

  • ackwired

    Black Box Voting is devoted to monitoring voter fraud. They tell us that it is most frequently done by candidates and that it is most frequently done with absentee ballots. It seems that the picture ID to vote proposal would actually not have any effect.

    • Vagabond661

      No one really knows because no one is asked for a picture ID.
      My mom has a picture ID on her handicap parking tag. I wonder why?

      • Seems to me the use of “early voting” is an effort to minimize the use of absentee ballots. People who won’t be in town on E-Day to vote have (here in Georgia) four whole weeks to do it — thus absentee ballots should only be used by those in much more extreme circumstances.

        People who early-vote in Georgia do have to show photo ID just like us Election-Day-voting dinosuars.

        • ackwired

          Not allowing voting by mail would be an effective way to reduce fraud. It sounds like that is the case in Georgia. Did you notice in the blac box voting article that the candidate was even counterfeiting utility bills to create ballots?

          • Not allowing voting by mail would be an effective way to reduce fraud.

            You’d think — but without a photo ID requirement at the polls the fraudsters would simply exploit that vulnerability.

          • Carl

            “You’d think — but without a photo ID requirement at the polls the fraudsters would simply exploit that vulnerability.”

            No evidence or proof of that whatsoever.

          • ackwired

            Possibly. It would not be simple.

          • lasveraneras

            Thanks for offering essentially to prohibit voting by my wife and I and all other U.S. citizens who reside overseas. But, hey, when you make an leftist omelet you gotta “suppress” a few votes.

          • ackwired

            We would not want to do that! I’m sure that there is not enough voter fraud that would be prevented to justify it. By the way, everyone who disagrees with you is not a leftist. I disagree with you because I am a libertarian.

      • jim_m

        My mom has a picture ID on her handicap parking tag. I wonder why?

        Isn’t the answer obvious? Because handicapped parking tags are distributed on a racist basis. If photo ID for voting is racist, photo ID for parking tags must be too.

    • 914

      If it has no effect why are the dems fighting it tooth and nail? Hmmmm? Maybe its because they will lose an easy 10% in double dipping and dead votes.

      • ackwired

        Studies show that about 10% of the eligible voters do not have government issued photo ID’s, and many of them would have trouble getting them. Most of these potential voters are seen as voting for Democrats. So the Democrats are opposed to disenfranchising them.

        • jim_m

          Numerous states have voter ID laws that have survived court scrutiny. This perpetual whine that voter ID suppresses votes is bullshit. Voter ID laws did not prevent those states that had such laws from experiencing record turn out in 2008 and record minority turnout that year as well.

          You can whine all you like about ID laws, but real world experience says that you are wrong.

          • ackwired

            No whine. Just explaining to 914 why the Democrats oppose the proposal. Nice strawman, though.

          • jim_m

            It’s not a strawman to point out that real world experience shows that with voter ID laws you can still get record overall turnout and record minority turnout. The bogus argument is that Voter ID suppresses the vote when you have real world experience that demonstrates the opposite.

            Your argument is not from fact but from unsubstantiated ideology.

          • ackwired

            That’s not my argument. It is the strawman argument that you assigned to me so that you could have this argument.

        • jim_m

          Since you need a photo ID to gain admission to Holder’s DOJ buildings are you going to complain that the obama admin is racially discriminating and violating the rights of minorities to seek redress of wrongs with the government?

          I didn’t think so.

          • Carl

            Voting is a Constitutional right.

            Entering the DOJ isn’t.

            You’re pushing strawman arguments, moron.

            People who defend racism are… let’s see now, what’s the word?


          • jim_m

            LOL. Yep. Like Sen. Robert Byrd.

          • jim_m

            See my comments how voter fraud in urban districts dilutes minority votes. Voter fraud actually disproportionately disenfranchise blacks in many instances. What you advocate is actually the real racist position.

          • Jwb10001

            You know where you can shove that race card of yours right jack ass?

          • ackwired

            LOL…there you go again. I was simply answering 914′ s question as to why Democrats oppose photo ID’s for voting. Democrats oppose it for the same reason that Republicans support it. It would result in fewer Democrats voting. I really don’t give a s..t about Holder’s building.

          • jim_m

            I agree that it would cause a sharp decrease in the number of dead democrats voting. But not live ones. As I mentioned previously, states with voter ID had no problem recording record vote totals in 2008. The claim that voter ID suppresses the vote is bogus.

          • ackwired

            I don’t see how having a record turnout proves that everyone voted that wanted to.

          • jim_m

            It sure as hell did not suppress the vote.

          • ackwired

            There is no proof of that. We simply don’t know. All I have said is that studies show that it did not stop voter fraud, and if that is your goal, there are other measures that would be much more effective (although they would effect voter fraud by both parties.)

          • jim_m

            I gave this comment to Tomincali too:

            With 4600-5300 more ballots cast than voters in a city (Milwaukee) that is 40% black in a state that is only 6.1% black, the voters being disenfranchised by voter fraud are disproportionately black.

            So what you are really advocating is that you would rather be diluting the black votes because you benefit from that form of voter suppression. You are advocating perpetuating a racist suppression of votes because you benefit from it.

          • ackwired

            There you go again, telling me what I am saying. Are all of your conversations with strawmen?

    • jim_m

      So your argument is that if you can’t stop all forms of fraud, there is no point in stopping any fraud?

      Nice little amoral world you live in. I suppose you apply that to all forms of injustice or just the ones where you benefit from the injustice continuing?

      • Carl

        No, his argument is that efforts to stop voter fraud that requires voter ID at the polls are racist – because there is virtually no voter fraud taking place at the polling place.

        Where voting fraud does happen is with absentee ballots.

        NONE of the “fraud prevention” efforts that Republicans have pushed on Americans addressed absentee ballots.


        NONE of the “fraud prevention” efforts that Republicans have pushed on Americans have addressed the only documented voter fraud cases.


        They’ve only served to disenfranchise the poor, elderly and minorities.

        IT’S NOT about voter fraud. It’s about radically changing who gets to vote in America by eliminating thousands of voters who tend to vote Democrat.

        It’s a black mark on the history of this nation.

        • jim_m

          How do you suppose to document the fraud committed when a person illegally casts multiple ballots? The ballot is cast in secret. there is no documentation of which ballots are the fraudulent ones. By definition voter fraud is hard to document but it is easy to see when it occurs.

          Having more ballots than voters is a clear sign that fraud has occurred. But despite the fact that this keeps happening you are prepared to ignore it until someone is caught and prosecuted? That’s just ignorant. I have shown several cases where non-absentee ballots have been cast illegally.

          As I have demonstrated: More fraud occurs in urban areas disenfranchising minorities disproportionately. As Others have pointed out: ID is not a barrier to voting since it is required for driving, purchasing alcohol, cigarettes and other items.

          The aim is not to disenfranchise any voters but to ensure that every vote counts and is not diluted by fraud.

          Voter ID laws have passed the test of the courts and we have still seen record turnout.

          Your opposition to voter ID is because you know that the left benefits from fraud. Your opposition is made obvious by your unwillingness to propose a single alternative to eliminate fraud.

      • ackwired

        I can always count on you to put words in my mouth that make no sense. What I was saying was not an argument. I was simply saying that if you want to fight voter fraud, attack it where it actually exists.

      • TomInCali

        So your argument is that if you can’t stop all forms of fraud, there is no point in stopping any fraud?

        Is yours that if you can stop all occurrences of a crime, then you should, regardless of how many innocent peoples’ rights are trampled in the process, or of the cost? Why do you think everyone isn’t required to be frisked upon entering a bank? Do you think it’s because the police and bank managers want to encourage robberies?

        • jim_m

          You can look at my arguments elsewhere. Go look at the fraud in Milwaukee in 2008. With more votes cast than voters the issue is that the votes of real voters are being suppressed. Real voters are being disenfranchised.

          Since Milwaukee is 40% black and the whole of Wisconsin is only 6.1% black you are advocating the suppression of black voters disproportionately.

          Who’s the racist now? You are advocating that we should disenfranchise black voters selectively by diluting their votes.

          Again this is why I say that the left is racist.

  • JWH
  • herddog505

    So, let me see if I understand our resident lefties correctly:

    There actually IS voting fraud, though it’s not “meaningful” (whatever that means), and, to the extent that it does happen, it’s pretty much limited to people monkeying around with absentee ballots. Photo ID will do nothing – NOTHING, comrades – to stop this. Further, there’s some fraction of our people who, for reasons that remain obscure, cannot get a photo ID. Now, one wonders how they manage to make it through everyday life in America as a photo ID is required for many transactions, from visiting the DoJ in Washington to cashing a check to driving a car, but to demand that they have an ID to vote is clearly, unequivocally RAAAAACIST.

    Does that about sum it up?

    • JWH

      As one of the resident lefties, my own positions:

      1) As far as voting fraud goes, the studies so far show that it is not as large-scale as voting-ID proponents would have you believe.

      2) If you require that individuals obtain a photo ID before voting, those individuals need to a) be notified of the change of law, preferably via a letter from their local election board; and b) be able to obtain a suitable photo ID without cost. If the former is neglected, then the rules have been changed without adequately notifying a voter. If the latter is neglected, then the photo-ID requirement becomes an unconstitutional poll tax.

      3) It is possible that the voter ID regulations will have a disparate impact on members of minority groups. While “disparate impact” arises more commonly in the context of employment, it can nevertheless be present in the realm of voting laws.

      4) There are people who see the voter-ID movement as a way to suppress minority-voter turnout, with the “fraud” justification a mere pretext. I will not comment on the validity of their claims. But there is a certain historical precedent for such things.

      5) I find it noncredible that partisans pushing the voter-ID laws are motivated by an altruistic desire to ensure clean elections. I find it more credible that such individuals wish to reduce the number of voters on the other side of the aisle. To pretend otherwise is to validate partisan hypocrisy.

      6) Partisan hypocrisy is not unconstitutional.

      • jim_m

        Vote fraud does make a difference:

        In Milwaukee 2008, “between 4,600 and 5,300 more ballots were cast than actual voters recorded as having shown up at the polls.”

        In Washington state where the gubenatorial election was decided by 129 votes

        Judge Bridges noted that there was evidence that 1,678 votes had been illegally cast throughout the state

        Al Franken was elected by fraudulent votes

        At least 341 convicted felons voted in Minneapolis’s Hennepin County,
        the state’s largest, and another 52 voted illegally in St. Paul’s Ramsey
        County, the state’s second largest. Dan McGrath, head of Minnesota
        Majority, says that only conclusive matches were included in the group’s
        totals. The number of felons voting in those two counties alone
        exceeds Mr. Franken’s victory margin.

        It is large enough scale to tip the vote to change the election results.

        Note that the dems claim that there is no significant fraud and that there is no problem because they are benefiting from it. They don’t care how they win. They don’t care who they disenfranchise. All they care about is winning.

        The claim that there is any racism about this issue is bogus and made to deliberately cloud the issue. They have no evidence that current voter ID is based in racism, like every other time it is raised as a bs objection to smear the opposition without proof.

        • JWH

          They have no evidence that current voter ID is based in racism, like every other time it is raised as a bs objection to smear the opposition without proof.

          Which is why we have courts. If somebody can show that a voter ID law has a disparate impact on voters of a particular ethnic group, then that person is free to present such evidence in court.

          To be honest, I don’t particularly oppose voter ID laws per se. I think it’s important that people be able to obtain photo IDs without cost (so that the ID is not a poll tax) and that in the year the rules change, a state government undertake a public-education campaign.

          Beyond that, I think Republicans are pressing the laws out of pure political advantage, but I don’t see any reason to oppose them strongly. I have an appropriate photo ID, and I know where my voting place is.

          • jim_m

            You claim that voter ID laws are pressed for political advantage, but you see no reason to oppose them. I wonder why it is that you refuse to admit that the opposition to voter ID laws is “out of pure political advantage” as well.

          • JWH

            Depends on who’s doing the opposing, I’m supposing.

          • jim_m

            Not really. Since vote fraud occurs predominantly in large urban districts which coincidentally have disproportionately minority communities, the voters being directly disenfranchised are minorities. Claims of racist motivation for voter ID are bogus on their face.

            The only reason to oppose measures to ensure only eligible voters are voting is to promote fraud. Notice that the left never admits that fraud is a problem. They only ever oppose measures to stop it. If the left were not benefiting from fraud in a significant way they would support measures to stop it and if racism really were their issue they would provide alternative measures to ensure only eligible voters were casting ballots.

            But the left has no alternatives. The left only opposes a clean vote.

          • JWH

            Look, Jim, as far as I’m concerned, if a person can preliminarily show that he’s suffering a disparate impact from a state’s voter-ID laws, that person is entitled to a day in court. If he’s got some decent evidence, he’s even entitled to a preliminary injunction.

            Let him show it in court, and then perhaps the court will rule on the law after the election. It might lift the preliminary injunction or it might not.

            And, yeah, after they find a sympathetic plaintiff, a Democratic-aligned lawyer might be motivated to challenge the law by political gain. Or that lawyer might genuinely be motivated by a belief racial injustice has occurred. Or the plaintiff might have paid a legal fee up front.

            There are a lot of possible motivations.

          • Rdmurphy42

            So are democrats opposing voter I’d laws for political advantage then? Or are you a hipocrite?

          • JWH

            Asked and answered.

        • TomInCali

          Note that the dems claim that there is no significant fraud

          Honest Republicans claim that too. You just choose not to listen to them.

      • jim_m

        I find it noncredible that partisans pushing the voter-ID laws are motivated by an altruistic desire to ensure clean elections.

        Granted. The left has been using voter frauds to win close elections for decades and it is time for that to stop. You want to perpetuate it. You are not intereested in free and fai elections, you are only interested in winning.

        Let me fix your statement

        I find it noncredible that partisans opposing the voter-ID laws are motivated by an altruistic desire to ensure minority participation in elections.

        Given the clear evidence that fraud is deciding elections on the state and national level the only excuse you have is that you desire to continue to benefit from voter fraud.

        • JWH

          Partisans opposing the voter-ID laws are motivated by a selfish desire to ensure minority participation in elections.

          Given the clear evidence that fraud is deciding elections on the state and national level the only excuse you have is that you desire to continue to benefit from voter fraud.

          Hogwash. I’ve never benefited from voter fraud in my life. Not even for prom king. Damn you, Chris, and your winning smile!!

        • JWH

          PS. Read my other reply to you. My main interest here is in making sure the IDs are freely available and in ensuring that people are notified of rules changes ahead of time.

          That is my position on the issue. Address that position and stop ascribing to me the positions you attribute to your strawman liberal.

          • jim_m

            MOst current voter ID laws have passed that test and have passed challenges in the courts. Further complaint that ID laws suppress votes is little more than partisan nonsense

          • JWH

            Good. Beyond that, I regard them as partisan nonsense, but I don’t particularly care enough to oppose them.

          • Here in GA they’ve got free IDs, and you can register to vote at any library – or when you get the ID. The only talk about voters being disenfranchised comes from the left, because it’s ‘too much trouble’ to get a free ID.

            At some point you’ve just got to stop and wonder… “If it’s too much trouble to get a free ID to vote, why are they bothering to try to vote in the first place?” Because you’ve got to get up, put shoes (and hopefully clothes) on, walk to the polling place (Because it’s too much effort to remember where you dropped your keys last night, and you’re low on gas because it’s too much trouble to remember to gas up) assuming you even remember where it is because it was too much effort to open your wallet and look at your voter registration card… which you don’t have in the first place because it was too much trouble to register…

            I don’t know, man. Seems to me the reasons for not having ID or registering are getting thinner and thinner…

      • herddog505

        1. I think it very reasonable to question those “studies”. Further, it seems to me that vote fraud, because voting is by nature secret, is hard to prove. Finally and most importantly, voting is a pretty serious matter, and it therefore seems reasonable to me to put safeguards in place. After all, we didn’t just pile all the nation’s gold in a field in Kentucky in the blissful belief that, because nobody had ever stolen it before, we had no need to build a fortress to store it;

        2. I certainly support both provisions, and I believe that most (if not all) of the voter ID laws proposed have incorporated them. O’ course, we’re told that people can’t afford to get to a DMV or similar government office get the ID’s, dems being good at making excuses why we should make NO efforts to secure the ballot;

        3. As noted many times, these same poor minorities have to have ID to drive, cash a check, buy alcohol, and otherwise function in normal American society. They seem to do these things, which leads to the conclusion that they HAVE ID already. This isn’t 1950 anymore. Further, are we to believe that ONLY minorities are poor?

        4. Yes, there are people who claim that voter ID is merely a nefarious plot to suppress minority voting. These people are called “democrats”.

        Upon reflection, I suppose that we ought to pay more heed to them because, if there’s any group of people who have a long history of voter suppression, voter intimidation, and outright fraud, it’s them. They are by way of being experts;

        5. Absurd. I find it entirely believable, especially in light of certain notorious incidents of people magically “finding” ballots after the votes have been counted, more people voting in a city / county than are registered there, voting machines defaulting to one candidate, etc., that people are honestly concerned with the integrity of the ballot. We test athletes for performance-enhancing drugs because we know that there has been cheating in the past. We lock our doors from reasonable fear of thieves. We sequester jurors out of reasonable concerns that they might be influenced during their deliberations. We make people show ID to buy alcohol to try to prevent underage drinking. We do background checks when people buy a gun. Yet, we are supposed to take no measures at all to secure the ballot, perhaps the most powerful tool in the hands of the common citizen? Worse, anybody who suggest that we do is a RAAAAACIST?

        6. You’re right: it isn’t.

        • JWH


          1. Question away.

          2. Nothing stopping Democrats from taking people to the DMV en masse to get the IDs.

          3. (skipping)

          4. There’s historical precedent for facially neutral laws being used to suppress voting. If there’s potential for that (or credible evidence), I say let it go to court on a case-by-case basis.

          5. When the people pushing voter ID are politicians, I assume they are not altruistic. I operate from the assumption that all politicians are weasels.

          6. Weasels are not unconstitutional.

          • jim_m

            When the people pushing voter ID are politicians, I assume they are not altruistic. I operate from the assumption that all politicians are weasels.

            There are a lot of people who support voter ID. that are not politicians. Who is going to push the legislation to get a voter ID law anyway? Your reasoning is circular. Only politicians pass laws > politicians are political > only politicians push voter id laws> therefore all voter ID support is purely political because the only people passing voter ID laws are politicians.

          • jim_m

            You skip point 3 but it negates your argument on racism. and discrimination against the poor.

          • JWH

            Did I argue the laws are per se discriminatory? I argue there’s the potential for abuse and that a person should be able to challenge the law. Of course, if the laws you support are truly fair and non-discriminatory, then you shouldn’t be afraid of a little court challenge.

          • jim_m

            I’m not objecting to the court challenge because ID laws are winning those challenges. I object to the fact that the left ignores this and continues with their repetition of false and debunked claims of racism etc.

          • Rdmurphy42

            The people pushing against voter ID are politicians too.

  • herddog505

    This is timely:

    Voter identification (ID) policies, especially those of the photo ID variety, have been hotly contested over the last few years. The primary concern surrounding these statutes amounts to lower turnout, especially among certain groups in the electorate, such as racial/ethnic minorities. In 2007, the way was cleared for Georgia to implement a new statute requiring registrants to present a government-issued photo ID to vote. Using population data on registrants from two election cycles coupled with information on a subgroup of registrants known to lack photo ID, we conduct a policy impact analysis of the Georgia voter ID law. We find that the new law did produce a suppression effect among those registrants lacking proper ID. Substantively, the law lowered turnout by about four-tenths of a percentage point in 2008. However, we find no empirical evidence to suggest that there is a racial or ethnic component to this suppression effect.

  • Jack Zimms

    There have been at least three cases where the Democrat candidate or campaigns have been caught committing voter fraud. It gets little attention from the Old Media and is supposedly wrong to say it reflects on any other Democrat. However, any strayed or misspoken comment that a Republican candidate says is an indictment on Romney and his beliefs.