The fraudulent case against voter ID

John Fund:

Supporters and critics of Indiana's law requiring voters to show a photo ID at the polls square off in oral arguments before the Supreme Court today. The heated rhetoric surrounding the case lays bare the ideological conflict of visions raging over efforts to improve election integrity.

Supporters say photo ID laws simply extend rules that require everyone to show such ID to travel, enter federal office buildings or pick up a government check. An honor system for voting, in their view, invites potential fraud. That's because many voting rolls are stuffed with the names of dead people and duplicate registrations--as recent scandals in Washington state and Missouri involving the activist group ACORN attest.

Opponents say photo ID laws block poor, minority and elderly voters who lack ID from voting, and all in the name of combating a largely mythical problem of voter fraud.

Some key facts will determine the outcome, as the court weighs the potential the law has to combat fraud versus the barriers it erects to voting. The liberal Brennan Center at NYU Law School reports that a nationwide telephone survey it conducted found that 11% of the voting-age public lacks government-issued photo ID, including an implausible 25% of African-Americans.

But U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker, who first upheld Indiana's photo ID law in 2006, cited a state study that found 99% of the voting-age population had the necessary photo ID. Judge Barker also noted that Indiana provided a photo ID for free to anyone who could prove their identity, and that critics of the law "have produced not a single piece of evidence of any identifiable registered voter who would be prevented from voting."

Since then, liberal groups have pointed to last November's mayoral election in Indianapolis as giving real-life examples of people prevented from voting. The 34 voters out of 165,000 who didn't have the proper ID were allowed to cast a provisional ballot, and could have had their votes counted by going to a clerk's office within 10 days to show ID or sign an affidavit attesting to their identity. Two chose to do so, but 32 did not.

Indeed, a new study by Jeffrey Milyo of the Truman Institute of Public Policy on Indiana's voter turnout in 2006 did not find evidence that counties with more poor, elderly or minority voters had "any reduction in voter turnout relative to other counties."

Opponents of photo ID laws make a valid point that, while Indiana has a clear problem with absentee-ballot fraud (a mayoral election in East Chicago, Ind., was invalidated by the state's Supreme Court in 2003), there isn't a documented problem of voter impersonation. "The state has to demonstrate that this risk of fraud is more than fanciful. And it really isn't," says Ken Falk, legal director for the ACLU of Indiana.

But Indiana officials make the obvious point that, without a photo ID requirement, in-person fraud is "nearly impossible to detect or investigate." A grand jury report prepared by then-Brooklyn District Attorney Elizabeth Holtzman in the 1980s revealed how difficult it is to catch perpetrators. It detailed a massive, 14-year conspiracy in which crews of individuals were recruited to go to polling places and vote in the names of fraudulently registered voters, dead voters, and voters who had moved. "The ease and boldness with which these fraudulent schemes were carried out shows the vulnerability of our entire electoral process to unscrupulous and fraudulent misrepresentation," the report concluded. No indictments were issued thanks to the statute of limitations, and because of grants of immunity in return for testimony.

...

My mom who is a stroke victim and lives in a nursing home has a valid ID. There is really no excuse for not having one. There is really no reason why Democrat activist can't get them before election for potential voters who do not have one. None. If they can go to the trouble of registering voters they can also determine whether they have a valid ID and if they do not they can get it for them before the election.

The concerns expressed by Democrats are in bad faith and are done in hopes that their voter fraud will not be discovered. What the ID requirement will do is add another layer of difficulty to the voter fraud of groups like ACORN. Now they will have to not only engage in fraudulent registrations as they have in the oast, but will also have to create some phony IDs to go with the phony registrations. That kind of effort will make it more likely they will be tripped up.

The Supreme Court should ask whether those arguing the case had to present a valid ID to get into the building to make the argument.