Even NYT Notes That Voter ID Laws DO NOT ‘Suppress’ Minority Voters

The left is all balled up in knots over the false claim that voter ID laws are meant specifically to “suppress” the vote of minorities and to swing elections to the GOP. This is a lie. And even The New York Times essentially agrees that this is a lie.

Firstly, the point of voter ID laws is not to “suppress” anything other than illegal votes. If a white guy is not properly registered and goes to the polling place without a valid ID, he shouldn’t vote any more than an African American or an Hispanic.

Now, the argument the loony left makes to “prove” that voter ID laws affect only minorities is that, according to these loons, liberal minorities are too stupid to figure out how to get an approved ID so that they can vote and will therefore be denied the right to vote.

They claim that they have “studies” that prove that many states have hundreds of thousands of minorities who lack the proper ID and so are being disenfranchised by voter ID laws.

But now even Nate Cohn from The New York Times proves that this claim is bunkum.

Cohen notes that relatively few Americans lack any of the dozens of approved forms of ID and those that do aren’t nearly numerous enough to swing any election–either to the left or to the right.

His conclusion: “Voter ID laws do not swing many elections, because people without identification do not represent a large share of registered voters; they are particularly unlikely to vote; and a share of them will vote Republican.”

So, the claim that ID laws are meant to swing elections to the GOP is nonsense.

Cohen does fall in line with the lie that these laws are meant to suppress minority votes, though. Even as his entire article disputes the claim directly with the facts, he makes the claim anyway. Probably just to keep the liberal attack dogs off his back.

In any case, it is a flat out lie that voter ID laws are meant to keep minorities from voting. On the contrary, not one state that has had a voter ID requirement has seen a decline in the minority vote.

Voter ID laws are meant for one reason and one reason only: to keep Democrats from flooding the polls with illegal votes. The left hates voter ID laws not because it keeps minorities from voting. They hate voter ID laws because it stops big city Democrat Party machines from cheating, or at least makes it harder for them to do so.

OPEC Declares War on US Shale
The dilemma of false narratives
  • GarandFan

    “They claim that they have “studies” that prove that many states have
    hundreds of thousands of minorities who lack the proper ID and so are
    being disenfranchised by voter ID laws.”

    They can claim all the “studies” they want, but have yet to provide a LIVING person that has a VIABLE excuse as to why they lack any type of identification.

  • Brucehenry

    And impostors showing up to vote never happens to the extent necessary to swing elections either. Voter ID laws are a solution in search of a problem.

    BTW don’t tell Jim you used NYT as a cite. Nothing they write can be believed, he says, because there’s a photo on somebody’s office wall of Walter Duranty.

    • Vagabond661

      then what’s the problem of having them?

      • Brucehenry

        I have said many times that I have no real problem with the photo ID requirement as long as it is easy to obtain one. My problem with the Voter ID laws promulgated by the GOP lately is with the restrictions on early voting they usually come with.

        • jim_m

          Caution… Moving goalposts.

          • Brucehenry

            Part and parcel

        • Vagabond661

          I didn’t see any restrictions here. I used early voting because I work out of town and work 10 hour days. I explained why and signed an affidavit. Easy peasy. Of course we have a voter ID law so I was required to show photo ID.

          • jim_m

            Bruce will tell you that it is only minorities, who he deems to be too poor to afford an ID and too stupid and incompetent to get an ID if offered for free, that will be discriminated against.

            Mind you, he sees no problem in requiring a photo ID to buy liquor or cigarettes or check into a hotel or fly or gain admittance to a federal building. No one is ever discriminated against by requiring an ID in those instances. I guess he doesn’t believe that minorities really need any of those things.

    • jim_m

      NO. Just don’t use it to support left wing BS. Otherwise, should they lurch into the truth it is noteworthy.

      • Brucehenry

        So if the NYT says something you like it is trustworthy but if it says something you disagree with it ain’t. OK.

        • jim_m

          No. It’s support of left wing causes has lead it to lie repeatedly to the public so further support of such causes is highly suspect. That is not a subjective prejudice, it is a rational response to their past behavior.

    • jim_m

      Many nations (including Brazil, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland) require ID in order to vote.

      They are there to promote confidence that the ballot is legitimate. But there we get to Bruce’s point, which is that he does not want to promote ballot integrity, and that is the only reason to oppose voter ID.

    • Retired military

      Actually several important elections have been decided by just a few hundred votes. Gore v Bush in Florida. Franken in Minn 2008 ( – and now we have Obamacare) are just 2 of the big ones.
      The possibility of fraud especially with Motor voter laws and same day registration presents enough of a problem that voter ID laws help prevent election theft.

    • Voter fraud comes in a variety of flavors. Why is one party (*cough* Democrat) so adamantly opposed to making voter fraud more difficult in all its forms?

      • Brucehenry

        Voter fraud would be impossible if nobody votes at all. Why is one party so intent on making sure fewer and fewer votes are cast?

        • Thanks for the view from your colon. If all you’ve got is the same, lame, tired lie that the GOP wants to suppress votes, then raise a cup of holiday Kool-Aid for me!
          The GOP, like any true and honest American, only wants to suppress illegal and dishonest votes.

          If voter fraud wasn’t a cottage industry with liberals, you’d join us in trying to keep elections honest.

        • jim_m

          Gee, Bruce, Since the only votes we have ANY evidence of their being suppressed are illegal ones, I guess that validates my accusation that the only reason you oppose voter ID is because you want to perpetuate vote fraud.

          Thanks for the admission.

          • Brucehenry

            And you have no evidence of impostor-at-the-polls votes being CAST either.

          • jim_m

            Not so. There are plenty if instances where people have cast provisional ballots because they claim to not be registered but are able to do same day registration in their states without having to provide proof of residency.

            Plus we could go back to the case of the 2000 election where Marquette Univ students were caught voting multiple times by claiming to be different people,

            Or we could cite people who have homes in more than one state that vote in both places. This would be eliminated by their having to provide an ID that shows where they live.

            There you go. I just cited 3 cases where voter ID would work.

          • Brucehenry

            What do you think the purpose of a provisional ballot is, Jim? It’s not counted if found to be invalid.

            The Marquette case is about CLAIMs that Marquette students made that they had voted several times. They also claimed to have done 22 jello shots and to have had sex with 223 coeds in one weekend.

            People who have homes in more than one state often have ID in more than one state. Not enough there there.

            Nobody had particular qualms about the integrity of the ballot box until Republicans started deliberately undermining it.

          • jim_m

            it’s illegal to hold a driver’s license in more than one state at the same time.

          • Scalia

            Bruce, we’ve already had this discussion. It was found that there were over 30K double votes across various states.

          • Brucehenry

            No it was found that there were 30K possible double registrations but it’s also possible that many of THOSE are just folks with similar names. There is no proof of any impostors showing up at the polls to vote recently. And by “none” I mean like 8 in 3 billion votes cast.

            Oh and also…


          • Scalia

            You must be remembering something else. They were not double registrations; they were double votes. Also, we addressed the “similar names” objection. Your “8 in 3 billion” has nothing to do with the multistate crosscheck.

          • Brucehenry

            Maybe I am do you have a link?

          • Scalia

            Report points to possible voter fraud in NC. The relevant quotation is:

            A total of 35,750 voters with matching first and last names and date of birth were registered in North Carolina and another state, and voted in both states in the 2012 general election.

            Another 765 voters with an exact match of first and last name, date of birth and last four digits of their Social Security number were registered and voted in the 2012 general election in North Carolina and another state.

            As I stated on the previous thread, although it is possible these individuals had similar names, it is highly unlikely that they were born on the same month, day and year. Even if 10% of them had the same birthday, there were still well over 30K double votes

          • Brucehenry

            This report alleges this massive fraud, but how many were arrested, questioned, or sanctioned in any way? None, you say? Why is that? Because it couldn’t be proven, perhaps?

            7675 sounds more like it, MAYBE.

            And notice the last two paragraphs of your link. Fraud may account for a massive 0.00174% of votes cast.

          • jim_m

            You do realize that it is still illegal and still immoral even if someone doesn’t go to prison?

            Or are you the typical leftist claiming that if no one was convicted then nothing wrong ever happened?

            Yeah, that’s what you are doing. You are claiming that lack of a successful prosecution means nothing bad happened. So I’m guessing that the 80% of murders in Chicago really aren’t murders because they are never solved and no one is ever charged, much less convicted. I’ll bet if one of your kids was bullied at school you didn’t wait for the police to arrest someone. You’re a freaking hypocrite.

          • Brucehenry

            The report states over 35,000 cases of double voting. Not only did no one go to prison, no one was arrested or questioned or notified that they had done something wrong or sanctioned in any way. Forget “successful” prosecution — nothing at all was done.

            Out of 35,000 cases, the authorities could find no one to charge with this felony? Is this a serious problem or isn’t it?

            Forgive me if I don’t find the 35,000 figure credible. Forgive me if I question whether this happened at all if the authorities couldn’t make even one case.

            765 cases, maybe. 35,000 cases and NONE of them are worth an arrest? Bullshit.

          • jim_m

            SO I am correct that you believe that if no one is charged that therefore nothing wrong ever happened. That’s sick and amoral and exactly what I predicted you would say.

          • Brucehenry

            The alternative being that every charge ever leveled is true?

            The fact is that out of 35,000 cases of alleged double voting — and here it is 7 months after the allegation was made — no one has been charged or questioned or approached by authorities to explain themselves. That to me seems like evidence maybe the charges aren’t true.

            Of course you believe them despite the fact that no follow up has occurred. Why do you think that not even ONE of these 35,000 cases is prosecutable? Again, is this a problem worth doing something about or isn’t it?

          • jim_m

            No, the alternative being that there is something serious to be looked at and just because you cannot or do not bring charges and convict someone doesn’t mean that something didn’t happen.

            So unlike your claim that Wilson did something wrong even though a Grand Jury claims that there is insufficient evidence to even charge him, there are other cases where no such finding has been made. Your assumption is that no crime was committed even though you have no evidence to support that stand and you offer nothing to refute the evidence presented that something wrong did occur.

            Instead you claim that a lack of charges or conviction is proof that nothing wrong happened at all. It’s like saying that Brown wasn’t killed because Wilson wasn’t convicted.

          • Scalia

            The last two paragraphs refer to reports to the Board of Elections in 2012. It has nothing to do with the multistate crosscheck.

            In the previous thread, I also posted links where non-citizens openly admitted to voting yet no prosecutions apparently ensued. Sorry, Bruce, but unless you can demonstrate that the data obtained by the crosscheck was flawed, your appeal to non-prosecution falls flat.

    • jim_m

      Vote fraud never happens according to Bruce, just like demagogic hucksters never dupe the black community.

      Tawana Brawley was unavailable for comment.

    • “BTW don’t tell Jim you used NYT as a cite”

      • westcoastwiser

        Why not use the NYT as a Cite, they are the paper of record, just like the transcript of a grand jury…

  • westcoastwiser

    Try not having a voter ID in Mexico… you’re dead meat if you don’t have one. So, all those border crossers know what it’s like to have one. Do they leave them behind? If not, why not let them use their Mexican ID?

    • Jwb10001

      Try living in Mexico as an undocumented worker.

      • jim_m

        I agree. We should treat illegals here the same as they do down there:

        * The Mexican government will bar foreigners if they upset “the equilibrium of the national demographics.” How’s that for racial and ethnic profiling?

        * If outsiders do not enhance the country’s “economic or national interests” or are “not found to be physically or mentally healthy,” they are not welcome. Neither are those who show “contempt against national sovereignty or security.” They must not be economic burdens on society and must have clean criminal histories. Those seeking to obtain Mexican citizenship must show a birth certificate, provide a bank statement proving economic independence, pass an exam, and prove they can provide their own health care.

        * Illegal entry into the country is equivalent to a felony punishable by two years’ imprisonment. Document fraud is subject to fine and imprisonment; so is alien marriage fraud. Evading deportation is a serious crime; illegal re-entry after deportation is punishable by ten years’ imprisonment. Foreigners may be kicked out of the country without due process and the endless bites at the litigation apple that illegal aliens are afforded in our country (see, for example, President Obama’s illegal-alien aunt — a fugitive from deportation for eight years who is awaiting a second decision on her previously rejected asylum claim).

        * Law-enforcement officials at all levels — by national mandate — must
        cooperate to enforce immigration laws, including illegal-alien arrests and deportations. The Mexican military is also required to assist in immigration-enforcement operations. Native-born Mexicans are empowered to make citizens’ arrests of illegal aliens and turn them in to

        * Ready to show your papers? Mexico’s National Catalog of Foreigners tracks all outside tourists and foreign nationals. A National Population Registry tracks and verifies the identity of every member of the population, who must carry a citizens’ identity card. Visitors who do not possess proper documents and identification are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.

        Of course to suggest that we treat Mexicans the way they expect to treat others would be RAAAAACIST!

  • Inherent in the idea of “One man, one vote” is “One man, only one vote”.
    Eliminating even the possibility of voter fraud will help protect the integrity of our democratic republic.

  • Michael Lang

    Wittle Brucie lost this one with his moronic responses.

    • Brucehenry

      If all I had was drive by snipes I’d just keep lurking, Michael.

      When was the last time you contributed ANYTHING, right, wrong, or could-go-either-way?

      • Sky__Captain

        Careful there, Michael.

        L’il Brucie can’t handle having his losses in debate pointed out. Makes him cranky and double down with personal attacks.

        • Brucehenry

          Did you win this debate Captain? What have you contributed to this debate — or really ANY Wizbang debate?

          You and your buttbuddy and fellow lurking potshot snarker slay me. Those who can, do, those who can’t take potshots and then lurk some more.

          • jim_m

            You side continues to lose the debate on voter ID. You lose mainly because your arguments are all dishonest.

          • Brucehenry

            Well ha ha even if that were so — and it ain’t — at least I participate and don’t lurk in the shadows and then come swaggering in after the debate is over claiming the other guy lost.

            These two are pussies. You know it. I know it. Hell, THEY know it.

          • jim_m

            Not everyone devotes the time and energy that you and I do to the comments section of this blog. I will not attack people who participate for their levels of participation. Just their BS ideas.

          • Brucehenry

            I agree that occasional commenters are to be welcomed. They just should have something more to say than a potshot here and a lame one-liner there. Have you ever seen either one of these losers express anything other than that? I haven’t.

          • jim_m

            I think you just dislike having the opprobrium you are held in declared by the general readership of the blog.

          • Brucehenry

            Ha ha maybe but these two guys are still pussies.

            Unlike, say, this “Proof” guy who always disagrees with me and hardly ever comments. When he DOES, though, it is to say something substantial. And he also includes some pretty good snark.

          • jim_m

            You are a bitter little wienie aren’t you?

          • Brucehenry

            I don’t FEEL bitter. I just gave props to occasional commenter “Proof.” There are many others who do similar things, appearing here only intermittently but offering something of value when they do.

            Then there are guys like these two and your buddy M. Soi Disant who have nothing to add but feel compelled I guess to spout off some lame potshot like a belch.

  • jim_m

    Speaking of voting: .A new WaPo poll shows that Darth Vader would out poll most potential 2016 candidates.

    My conclusion is that this is because unlike most other candidates, we know that there is still a tiny remnant of goodness within Darth Vader.

  • Bob Wray

    I loved the tee shirt Nelson Mandela wore in South Africa. As well as I can remember, it said: Get an ID, Register, Vote. Guess he was trying to give whites a hard time?

  • Michael Lang

    Wittle Brucie = sad and pathetic = typical liberal.

    • Brucehenry

      Get a life.

      Or at least get an opinion about something else other than how much you hate me.

      And when you get one, please share it with the rest of us lol.

      • Michael Lang

        No, I don’t this so. It is to much fun yanking a your moron chain. By all means , keep up the stupid responses….they are so entertaining for years now.

        • Brucehenry

          Proofreading — it’s not just for liberals any more.