Tag Archives: voter ID

Obama, Holder, and Voter ID




On Monday, January 16, 2012, Attorney General Eric Holder said, “Protecting the right to vote, ensuring meaningful access, and combating discrimination must be viewed not only as a legal issue but as a moral imperative. And ensuring that every eligible citizen has the right to vote must become our common cause.” He claims that voter identification is discriminatory because it would make voting harder for minorities, who lack sufficient forms of government-approved ID more often than whites do. Holder is repeating the protests of groups like the NAACP and the George Soros-funded Brennan Center, which claim that voter ID laws hurt minorities. The NAACP even petitioned the United Nations this month for a human-rights ruling on what NAACP president Benjamin Jealous called a “tidal wave of assaults on the right to vote.” He meant in America, not Cuba or North Korea. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has sued to challenge a voter ID law in Wisconsin. Lawsuits offered by liberals claim that voter ID laws endanger the rights of hundreds of thousands, but lawsuits in Indiana and Georgia were dismissed because plaintiffs couldn’t produce a single eligible voter who’d been turned away due to the ID requirement. Turnout has risen in states that have passed the voter ID laws, with no adverse impact on minorities.

The only evidence I could find to substantiate Holder’s (and Jealous’) claim that voter ID laws hurt minorities is provided here. In a paper entitled, “VOTER ID REQUIREMENTS AND THE DISENFRANCHISEMENTS OF LATINO, BLACK AND ASIAN VOTERS” by Matt A. Barreto, Stephen A. Nuño, and Gabriel R. Sanchez, presented at the 2007 American Political Science Association Annual Conference, they state, “Derived from economics, Downs’ theory is based upon the ideal that ‘every rational man decides whether to vote just as he makes all other decisions: if the returns outweigh the costs, he votes; if not, he abstains (Downs 1957: 60).’ The registration process is one of the largest sources of cost to rational minded voters. Therefore, the more permissive registration laws are, the lower the time, energy, and informational costs of voting (Wolfinger and Rosenstone 1980). Attempts to analyze the impact of restrictive laws on voter registration have consistently concluded that turnout rates are higher when costs associated with registration are low (Campbell et al. 1960; Wolfinger and Rosenstone 1980; Katosh and Traugott 1982; Jackson 1993; Blank 1974; Kim, Perocik and Enokson 1975; Bauer 1990).” The authors continue, “This perspective suggests that voting may be less costly for those with greater levels of political resources such as money, time, English language abilities and education. Therefore, any increases in costs associated with voting should have the greatest impact on those with the fewest political resources – racial and ethnic minorities, the less educated, immigrants, and the less affluent to name a few.”  [emphasis mine]

43 U.S.C. § 1973 (The Voting Rights Act of 1965 [VRA]), states,

  • (a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b (f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b) of this section.  [again, emphasis mine]
  • (b) A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.  [again, emphasis mine]

  • (a) mentions section 1973b (f)(2). So here it is: (f) Congressional findings of voting discrimination against language minorities; prohibition of English-only elections; other remedial measures. (2) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote because he is a member of a language minority group.  [again, emphasis mine]

Not a word in there about money, time, and education, factors cited as disenfranchisements of latino, black, and asian voters. In fact, 43 U.S.C. § 1973 states specifically “on account of race or color.” So while latino, black, and asian voters may, indeed, be disenfranchised, the causes are NOT covered under the VRA, except in the case of language. But this language disenfranchisement factor has NEVER been mentioned by Holder! His entire argument has focused on voter id.

Holder’s remarks are notable because they come as the Department of Justice (DOJ) is reviewing voter ID laws in Texas and South Carolina for “preclearance” under the VRA. So what Holder is doing has been deemed legal by the Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court has also found voter IDs to be legal! The states’ plans require voters to present photo ID like a driver’s license or passport to vote, a measure endorsed by the Commission on Federal Election Reform headed by President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker in 2005 to protect the integrity of the ballot. Holder says the Civil Rights Division, headed by Thomas Perez, will review the policies and impartially “apply the law.” If true, Mr. Perez’s job should be easy: In 2005, Justice approved a nearly identical law in Georgia. In 2008’s Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (in Indiana), the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that an Indiana law requiring photo ID at the ballot box was constitutional. Then-Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote for the majority that Indiana’s law “is unquestionably relevant to the State’s interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.” Indiana offered free voter ID cards to all citizens, so the inconvenience of picking up an ID at the Department of Motor Vehicles wasn’t an undue burden and was reasonably balanced by the state’s interest in reducing fraud.

In a Reuters article, we learn that the South Carolina [voter ID] law required voters to show a state-issued photo identification card to cast a ballot in an election. DOJ blocked the law after ruling it could hinder the right to vote of tens of thousands of people. It noted that just more than a third of the state’s minorities who are registered voters did not have a driver’s license. But both Holder and Reuters are being disingenuous. A driver’s license isn’t the only acceptable form of identification. State ID cards – issued free of charge to those who can’t pay for them – are also accepted, as are passports, military ID, and a voter registration card with photo.

Holder and the DOJ raise all of this voter ID furor in the name of “free access to vote.” But in 2009, Holder and the DOJ dropped a voter intimidation case against the Black Panther Party, in which members stood outside a polling place brandishing nightsticks and threatening voters.

But that’s just my opinion.

Access to other articles like this one can be found at RWNO, my personal web site.


The part of James O'Keefe's video that no one is talking about

James O’Keefe’s latest video – in which several election officials in New Hampshire handed out ballots for dead people – has a lot of people talking about the issue of requiring photo ID at polling places.  But for me, it immediately brings up a different question.

Why should it be illegal to videotape public officials?

When some local politicians in New Hampshire found out that election officials had been handing out ballots for voters who were already dead, they were outraged… with O’Keefe!

For example, look at the reaction of Nashua City Clerk Paul Bergeron:

“They recorded it without election officials’ knowledge, which apears to be a violation of our New Hampshire wiretapping codes, and some of these are out of state residents, so I don’t know if violations of wiretapping or ID theft could hold up in court, but if they crossed state lines to commit these crimes, it may be a federal crime as well. This is serious; we won’t tolerate voter fraud, regardless of what the intent might be,” Bergeron said.

“If these are New Hampshire residents they should lose their right to vote forever, in addition to fines or imprisonment. I take it seriously, and people shouldn’t dismiss this as just a harmless stunt; it’s not,” Bergeron said.

Wow – this guy takes fraud really seriously!  Any time fraud happens he’s pounding his desk demanding that something be done about it.  Except that, I haven’t been able to find one quote from him expressing even the slightest concern about how easy it was for someone to walk into a polling place and get a fraudulent ballot.

If that seems inconsistent, it is.  And a quick look at the Nashua web site will tell you exactly why Bergeron is furious about the undercover video that was taken… but reluctant to talk about how vulnerable this election was to fraud:

[The City Clerk’s Office] conducts all local, state and national elections…

So Bergeron isn’t really angry that someone allegedly broke a random law about videotaping public officials.  He’s angry because someone is spotlighting the fact that he didn’t do enough to ensure the integrity of this election.

Now that his ineffectiveness is getting publicity, rather than take responsibility, Bergeron is attacking James O’Keefe – plain and simple.

Another politician who’s outraged and demanding that O’Keefe and his associates be “prosecuted to the full extent of the law” is New Hampshire Governor John Lynch.  Why?  Last year he vetoed a bill that would have required a person to show photo ID in order to vote.  In hindsight, maybe Lynch is realizing that that wasn’t the best decision.

In reality, neither of these guys are genuinely outraged by this voter fraud.  Their reaction can be explained with three letters: C-Y-A.  That’s all it is.  They are angry that someone is drawing attention to their ineptitude so they are lashing out at the person doing it.

This perfectly demonstrates why we as citizens need to be legally able to videotape our public officials.  Unfortunately, this type of reaction is common when someone in a position of authority is challenged because people in power will often do whatever they need to do to hold on to that power.

Our elected officials have a lot more resources at their disposal than the average citizen and can even use their position in government to retaliate against anyone who exposes their shortcomings. Because of the enormous power that comes simply from being in government, we as citizens need to have the most powerful defense available to us – video tape.

But this is about much more than just defending ourselves from being persecuted by out of control politicians.  Video is also by far the most effective way for individuals to create change in the policies of government.  In fact, O’Keefe’s video has already prompted an investigation.

As New Hampshire’s unfortunately named Assistant Attorney General explained:

According to the Union Leader, state Associate Attorney General Richard Head said his office became aware of the effort on Election Day and began investigating immediately.

“That investigation is ongoing,” he said. “Based on the information received on Election Day and the information on the video, we are undertaking a comprehensive review of voting procedures with the Secretary of State.”

Now do you think O’Keefe would have gotten an immediate reaction like that if he had obtained ballots for dead people and then written an article about it?

What if he had interviewed election officials and written about that?

How about if he had written a letter to the Attorney General?

Of course not.  If he had used any or even all of those methods there is no way that Richard Head would already be reviewing the voting procedures.  That is the power of video.

It all comes down to the balance of power between the people and the government – and right now the scales are tipped way too far in favor of the government.  Because of that, videotaping public officials is a tool that we must have at our disposal if we are going have any chance of properly holding our government accountable.

Voter ID video reveals ties to radical front groups

The League of Women Voters Minnesota has been fighting voter identification legislation for years, but with a Republican controlled State House and Senate pushing for a ballot initiative, the League has ramped up their opposition.

The following 17 minute commercial (LWV calls it a documentary) entitled “Democracy for All? The Barriers of Photo ID” was funded in part by a large grant by The Joyce Foundation.

Democracy for All? The Barriers of Voter ID from LWV Minnesota Education Fund on Vimeo.

The Joyce Foundation is headquartered in Chicago, IL and has an influential list of past board members.

Then Senator Barack Obama and current Senior Advisor to the President (and BFF of the First Lady) Valerie Jarrett were board members in the early 2000’s. In 2001, Obama secured more than $1 million in funding from the Joyce Foundation to launch the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) with the help from former Goldmann Sachs CEO Hank Paulson. By legislative mandate, CCX was to be the trading outlet for Cap & Trade had the bill passed in Congress. CCX has since dissolved. Learn the ties between GE, CCX, Al Gore, and Goldmann Sachs here.

The Joyce Foundation also grants money to the Tides Foundation (a.k.a. George Soros pet project), the Center for American Progress, which is credited with writing the stimulus bill of 2009 (and where former Energy Czar and communist-leaning Van Jones hangs out), and Take Action Minnesota, which has made headlines recently for organizing and funding “occupy” protesters in the Twin Cities. In 2010, the Joyce Foundation granted Take Action Minnesota $350,000 to “advance a political reform agenda that encompasses election administration…” according to the foundation’s website.

Beyond the ties to a Soros-funded, radical, progressive group, the video is also full of misleading statistics, discrepancies and exaggerations. The League of Women Voters MN held a screening of “Democracy for All?” today in White Bear Lake, MN.

League of Liberal Women Voters event inconsistencies

The League of Women Voters MN is hosting a special screening of their latest Anti-Voter ID commercial they are calling a documentary on Thursday in White Bear Lake, MN. The 17 minute “film” is entitled “Democracy for All? Barriers of Voter ID” and features voters, activists and even a St. Paul City Council Member decrying the supposed unfairness of requiring proof of legal eligibility to vote.

The bill proposing election reform in Minnesota made its way through Congressional committees last spring and summer and apparently has the League of Women Voters outraged. The proposal would require citizens to provide valid and current photo ID upon registering to vote and/or requesting a ballot on election day.

At the House Transportation Committee hearing in April 2011, the League of Women Voters, Common Cause MN and City Council Member Melvin Carter III testified in opposition to the bill. Some of the recorded testimony is part of the “Democracy for All?” video.

Councilman Carter’s testimony was particularly emotional. In his statement, Carter recounts his experience attempting to vote while attending college.

“If I could trace my own personal mission back to one moment, it’s being wrongfully turned away from a Tallahassee, Florida Polling Location as a student at Florida A&M University during Election 2000,” says Carter.

That statement obviously sounds as though the election officials at the precinct were incorrect to refuse a ballot to Carter.

Following the hearing in an impromptu “interview” conducted on the way to the elevator, I asked the Councilman to elaborate on his story. He recanted part of his previously sworn testimony and said that it was actually his brother in law that was turned away. Carter explained that because his brother in law was not on the rolls, he was denied a ballot.

“Did he have a registration card? Florida provides a small piece of paper, sent in the mail to verify address, that a voter can bring on election day on the off chance that the rolls are incorrect. Did your brother in law have that card?” I asked.

Carter responded by explaining that there were all kinds of purged names from the rolls in 2000 but failed to answer the question of whether or not his brother in law had in fact registered in accordance with Florida election law.

Carter has in essence built his political career around the story of his brother’s election day 2000 experience and has even won awards based on its merit. He has testified under oath at a Congressional hearing claiming it was he who was turned away, yet his website and other publications suggest it was his brother who was turned away. When asked directly last spring, he said it was his brother-in-law. Which is it? Calls to Councilman Carter’s office were not immediately returned.

Is the League of Women Voters MN aware of the inconsistencies in Carter’s story? With the obvious flaws in Carter’s testimony, may we assume that they haven’t fact checked any of the other statements in the video?

A call to LWV Executive Director Laura Fredrick Wang has not yet been returned.

For more information on the League of Women Voters, their impact on elections and their connections to progressive front groups like Common Cause, click here: Smoking guns, Photo ID, voter fraud and corrupt organizations

_________________________________________________________
UPDATE:

Concilman Carter returned a phone call to correct the details in his story about voting in Florida in 2000. According to Carter, he was encouraged to vote along with his brother-in-law, Roi Ward, and his family at a precinct close to Florida A&M University.

“It was my brother-in-law actually. He and my sister said, “hey come with us to go vote,” so I just went with them,” says Carter. “We arrived and waited in line, I don’t know, like 30 minutes or whatever, and then they said because Roi’s name wasn’t on the list he couldn’t vote.”

Carter continued, “I’m not sure if he’d registered at this precinct before, but I think he voted there before. You know, he had a voter card, a registration card but they said, “You’re not on the list,” so we just left.”

Neither Carter nor his brother-in-law filed any formal complaints and no charges were filed against the precinct in Tallahassee.

When asked about the current system and the documented voter fraud cases in Minnesota and around the country, Carter said, “What is that, like a 100th of a percent? I mean, I don’t have first hand knowledge of the cases you are referring to, but there’s never going to be a perfect system… Human error is going to occur.”

“Minnesota has a great track record of voter turnout,” says Carter when asked how there could be more ballots than registered voters in some precincts in Minnesota. “I don’t have first hand information about that. I haven’t seen any evidence of people trying to cast inaccurate or illegal votes.”

The Councilman was gracious enough to return a phone call and certainly explained his story in further detail, however the truth of his story is still muddled. His testimony at the House hearing was clearly not accurate and a quick Google search turns up different versions of his story, including one told by Wellstone Action which claims Carter waited over 3 hours at the polling place before being turned away.

The problem of course isn’t the number of hours waited or in-law vs. brother vs. self, but rather the fact that the League of Women Voters MN is promoting a film as evidence that voter ID isn’t necessary and didn’t validate the claims made in the film. The “documentary” cannot be trusted if the simplest of details to verify wasn’t done.

Republicans hate young people .. or something

Reading The New York Times today one gets the idea that Republicans now have added the college youth to the other groups of Americans that they already hate.

The editorial by Andrew Rosenthal points out that the right-of-center is not only racist, sexist, anti-immigrant but now – Conservatives apparently hate college kids too.

Next fall, thousands of students on college campuses will attempt to register to vote and be turned away. Sorry, they will hear, you have an out-of-state driver’s license. Sorry, your college ID is not valid here. Sorry, we found out that you paid out-of-state tuition, so even though you do have a state driver’s license, you still can’t vote.

Mr. Rosenthal continues by placing the blame firmly upon the heads of the GOP:

It’s all part of a widespread Republican effort to restrict the voting rights of demographic groups that tend to vote Democratic. Blacks, Hispanics, the poor and the young, who are more likely to support President Obama, are disproportionately represented in the 21 million people without government IDs.

This is as weak a play as I’ve seen from the left. I spent years at a college outside my district and had no trouble obtaining absentee ballots. I spent years outside my home state as I moved from duty station to duty station and had no trouble getting my absentee ballots.

Getting a state issued photo ID (ID card or Driver’s license) is simple and cheap. Registering to vote can be done at the very same time. If these students are so alive with civic responsibility, they should spend a few hours in their home districts to get an ID and register. Then spend a few minutes and request an absentee ballot.

If someone isn’t willing to invest a few hours of their time to make sure they can vote, one could draw the conclusion that they would not spend at least that much time to research their choices before voting.

This is an irresponsible if not politically-driven editorial. In his own quote he mentions that the new demographic that he intends to protect would likely vote for Obama.

Maybe it’s not actually the republicans manipulating voting demographics after all.

Voter ID Laws to Prevent Vote Early and Vote Often

“Vote early and vote often.” The phrase had its origins in the United States in the mid-19th century, and had an early appearance in Britain when a newspaper re-printed correspondence from an American attorney.

The phrase, however, did not find widespread use until the early 1900s when it was used in relation to the activities of organized crime figures in Chicago. The phrase was used by three different Chicagoans: Al Capone, the famous gangster; Richard J. Daley, mayor from 1955 to 1976; and William Hale Thompson, mayor from 1915-1923 and 1931-1935. All three were notorious for their corruption and their manipulation of the democratic process.

The phrase is used mostly to suggest the occurrence of voter corruption, and it suggests ballot stuffing or some other form of electoral fraud involving individuals casting multiple votes.

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) is a federal law, drafted in reaction to the controversy surrounding the 2000 U.S. presidential election. The goals of HAVA are:

  1. replace punchcard and lever-based voting systems;
  2. create the Election Assistance Commission to assist in the administration of Federal elections; and
  3. establish minimum election administration standards.

This link shows current voter registration and voting requirements.

Now Democrats are protesting strengthing (or even keeping) voter ID laws. House Democrats, including House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD), said that voter ID laws were equivalent to poll taxes and Jim Crow laws, arguing that they were deliberate attempts to keep minorities from voting. Representative Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), said that voter ID laws were “reminiscent” of racist Jim Crow laws that were enacted to keep blacks from voting. “Given the disproportionate impact the voter suppression laws will have on African American voters, these laws are reminiscent of the poll taxes used in the Jim Crow South,” Rep. Cleaver said.

State governments are granted the right under the Constitution to set standards for voting, but the Constitution has been amended to restrict what states may do. States may not limit the right to vote on account of race (13th Amendment), nor can states limit the right to vote on account of sex (19th Amendment), the right to vote based upon the payment of a poll tax (24th Amendment), nor the right to vote based upon age of a person 18 years old or older (26th Amendment). Nothing in the Constitution prohibits states from adopting reasonable steps to protect the sanctity of the vote by preventing voter fraud and insuring that a prospective voter is who he claims to be. But efforts by state legislatures to require voter identification, to reduce the time allowed for early voting, and to monitor more closely groups that engage in voter registration drives (such as ACORN) have angered politicians such as Richard Durbin (D-IL), Majority Whip of the U.S. Senate and Chairman of the Senate Civil Rights Subcommittee.

Election Results from Tuesday November 8th

Check back regularly as the CDNews staff will be updating this page as results come in from Washington, Mississippi, Virginia, Kentucky and Ohio. (or just hit the reload/refresh button occasionally)

Kentucky

Steve Beshear (D) wins re-election bid as Governor – has more than 58% of the vote

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear has been re-elected, becoming the second Democrat to win a U.S. gubernatorial race this year amid lingering economic uncertainty that’s already proving worrisome to President Barack Obama’s 2012 effort.

Beshear easily overcame challenges from Republican David Williams and independent Gatewood Galbraith, in a conservative state where voters routinely elect Republicans in national races. With 50 percent of precincts reporting, Beshear had 241,211 votes or 58 percent, to 131,319 votes for Williams or 31 percent. Galbraith had 44,893 votes or 11 percent. [from HuffingtonPost]

Ohio

Issue 2: FAILED: SB5 – the limitation of collective bargaining for public-sector unions – Initiative fails, SB5 defeated, unions can hold Ohio citizens hostage again thanks to Millions of Dollars of Big-labor special interest money.

Issue 3: PASSED: Vote to exempt Ohio from Obamacare insurance mandate – measure passes – Ohio citizens have voted to be exempt from Obama’s health care reform individual mandate. Supreme Court case incoming “10th amendment v. Obama”

Maine

Maine voters decided that it should be ok to vote the same day you register overturning the law that would have required voters to register a whole 2 days before the election.

Mississippi

Initiative 26: FAILED: Definition of a Person (personhood) – does life start at conception? Mississippi says no: 42% yes, 58% no with 921 of 1876 precincts reporting

Gubernatorial race: BRYANT WINS: Phil Bryant (R) vs. Johnny DuPree (D): 802 of 1876 precincts reporting 59% to 41% for Bryant

Washington

The Washington Liquor State Licensing Initiative (1183) was PASSED by a 60-40 margin.  The referendum called for the closing of state liquor stores as a part of budget cutting and the privatization of liquor sales.

Virginia

Preliminary indications are that the Virginia Senate will be split 20-20 giving the tie break to the GOP Lt. Governor and control of committees to the Republicans.  However Senate seat 17 has been decided by less than 100 votes.  A recount is expected.

Maine's Battle Over Voter Registration

As the presidential election draws closer and many states hold their midterm elections this month, voter identification and registration has once again become a hotly contested issue. Not even the state of Maine has escaped this controversy, as same day voter registration is the controversial first question on the ballot.

Because many Mainers are unfamiliar with the background of the question, there is confusion over what a yes or no vote means.

The question reads:

Do you want to reject the section of Chapter 399 of the Public Laws of 2011 that requires new voters to register to vote at least two business days prior to an election?

A ‘yes’ vote means repealing a law requiring voters to register before they go to the polls. It means people could register and vote all in one trip to the polls.

A ‘no’ vote means that the voter wishes to uphold the bill and wants to require Maine voters to register to vote before they go to the polls on election day.

Clearly, the wording of the question is confusing, especially if you don’t know what Chapter 399 of the Public Laws of 2011 is. In June of this year, Governor Paul LePage signed An Act to Preserve the Integrity of the Voter Registration and Election Process. This updated Maine’s registration law so that mail registration must be mailed 21 business days before the election and in person registration must be done at least 3 business days before the election. Mainers who were angry with this change of policy enacted a petition that gained enough signatures to force Question 1 onto the state ballot.

Now that it is there, the pressure to influence voters is high. Groups who want same day voter registration to continue are campaigning on the usual line- If same day voter registration is vetoed, people won’t vote, especially the lower classes. They have also been pressuring students to vote yes on Question 1, claiming that it helps ensure their voice be heard.

Opponents to same day voter registration are crying foul- their argument is the same for those who advocate the mandatory use of voter ID- reducing the risk of fraud. Obviously, same day voter registration eliminates verification of identity before voting, making it much easier for illegal immigrants to vote and much easier for people to assume identities that are not theirs.

This question is certainly the most contested question in the state and reflects a growing national conflict over voter security. In a day and age where identity theft is easy and at many polling places, identity verification is lax, many are calling for the use of voter ID. This has the possibility of taking on many forms-a drivers license, student ID, insurance card, etc. But opponents to such measures claim that this would lead to racial discrimination and would stop minorities and the low class from voting. Many scoff at this idea since required voter ID would mean all voters, regardless of race, would have to prove their identity.

The results of this ballot question will be interesting, as it may set a precedent for the issue of voter identification and registration on a national issue. Do voters believe the charges that same day voter registration leads to fraud? Or do they believe instead that same day voter registration is a great benefit to those without means to get around or have busy schedules and fraud is not important? Whatever the outcome, this is an important vote to watch as the national election, and questions of required voter ID come to a climax.

Recent Entries »