• Comment (11)

Obama Administration's Texas Decision Invites Voter Fraud

March 15, 2012 RSS Feed Print

There are few rights that are valued as dearly as the right to the universal franchise. Wars have been fought to secure it and wars have been fought to protect it. People have died defending it and they have died trying to make sure it was extended to others.

Voter fraud cheapens the value of the universal franchise. There are those, like the current president of the United States and his attorney general, however, who act  like it's a fiction, some kind of right-wing fantasy that does not deserve our attention. And, as such, they are taking steps to oppose every reasonable effort to guard against it.

[Check out our editorial cartoons on President Obama.]

In recent months a number of states have moved forward with changes to their election laws designed to minimize the possibility of voter fraud. These include the abolition of same-day registration and the requirement that voters show a photo ID before being allowed to cast a ballot. The Obama administration has staked out a position in opposition, telling the state of Texas, for example, that its new voter ID law is unconstitutional because it discriminates against Hispanics, African-Americans, the elderly, and others.

Texas is now the second state, South Carolina being the first, where the Justice Department has used its authority under the federal Voting Rights Act to block voter ID. "In regard to Texas, 'I cannot conclude that the state has sustained its burden' of showing that the newly enacted law has neither a discriminatory purpose nor effect, Thomas E. Perez, the head of the Justice Department's civil rights division, said in a letter to the Texas secretary of state," the Associated Press reported earlier this week.

[Peter Roff: Despite What Democrats Claim, Voter Fraud is Real]

Consider what the Justice Department is saying. That the requirement to show a photo ID before voting is too intrusive, too expensive, and discriminatory against a certain class of people when federal law already requires people provide proof of identity to board an airplane, get a passport, or start work at a new job. Photo ID is also required when renting a car, purchasing alcohol, cashing a check or entering a federal building. Do these regulations also discriminate? One would think the same Justice Department that has blocked voter ID would say "Yes," but they haven't.

Add to this the news that citizen-journalist James O'Keefe was able to demonstrate the potential for voter fraud is real in places like New Hampshire and Vermont, where someone working with him asked for and received ballots in the names of different people at polling places across the state and was given them without have to prove who they were.

If a citizen-journalist can do such a thing successfully just to prove a point, what might a well-organized political campaign by a third-party be able to do that would affect the outcome of an election? It is clear that additional safeguards are necessary but the Obama administration opposes them, not because they are constitutional questionable but, more than likely, because they realize they are more likely to benefit from voter fraud than be harmed by it.

[Washington Whispers: ACLU Leader Says Voter ID Law Akin to Jim Crow-Era Law]

Moreover, the harm is immediate and cannot be mitigated. Once a vote is cast, that's it. This has been the argument several times in recent years when the probability that voter fraud had occurred was high, as when felons have been found to have voted illegally—but, as no one can prove for whom they voted, there is no remedy available. The only way to guard against voter fraud is to prevent it from occurring in the first place.

There are plenty of problems at the polling places in every election, not all of which rise to the level of outright fraud. In truth, however, fraud itself is rampant—from harassment at polling places to the signing of false names to nominating petitions to people who actually vote more than once in a single election or who cast a vote in the name of another. Such actions cheapen the rights and representation of each and every legitimate voter in the United States. It is indeed a strange world when a presidential administration asks for an investigation into alleged irregularities in a foreign election but turns a blind eye to the possibility of irregularities here at home.

 

Tags:
Obama administration,
fraud,
voters,
politics

Reader Comments Read all comments (11)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Bob of TX-Bad example. How does voter I.D. help with absentee ballots? Also, looks like the system worked, the ballots were thrown out. O.k. with me to have voter I.D., so are we proposing a national I.D. card? I have one. It's my social security card, just stick my address and face on it. I wonder, in your election, how many legitimate votes were not counted. When I see voter fraud in this country, it doesn't usually seem to be at the voter level, but higher up. Votes not being counted, ballots being misplaced, etc. If you really want to combat voter fraud, look higher up the food chain. I might add, voter fraud is probably at lts lowest level ever. Remember Landslide Lyndon Johnson? He won his Senatorial race in 1948 when 203 "votes" mysteriously materialized. It's actually better now than it has ever been. It will never be perfect. I have a photo I.D., my driver's license. I just looked at it. I bet I could fake one of these things easily. Maybe DNA testing?

bing of AL 6:34PM March 20, 2012

I live in Texas. Ninety four percent of registered hispanic voters in Texas have an acceptable ID. Ninety six percent of non hispanics (whites, asians, african americans) have an acceptable ID. This is the data Justice used to support their claims of discrimination against hispanics.

A recent city council race in the city I live in was decided by one vote. Three absentee ballots from a foreign country (the same country the loser was born in) were received in the mail two days after the election results were posted. Two of the ballots were postmarked after the election date and one had a different signature from that on the absentee ballot request. The ballots were disposed of without opening. This was a clear attempt at election fraud. How do you know this is not happening in you hometown?

Bob of TX 12:37PM March 16, 2012

Looks like we need Zorro again, eh, folks?

Antonio Banderas of CA 6:06AM March 16, 2012

Peter Roff

Peter Roff

Peter Roff is a contributing editor at U.S. News & World Report. Formerly a senior political writer for United Press International, he’s now affiliated with several public policy organizations including Let Freedom Ring, and Frontiers of Freedom. His writing has appeared in National Review, Fox News’ opinion section, The Daily Caller, Politico and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @PeterRoff.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement