Voters will be asked to bring something with them when they head to the polls for the New Hampshire Primary on Sept 11 — some form of photo identification. link.
Author Archives: ELECTIONLAWCENTER.COM
Voter Suppression Myth: “The real myth lies in the claim that voter ID laws suppress minority votes.”
Is voter suppression by voter ID a myth? Yes, Fox News Latino reports: Eight states currently have voter ID laws in effect including Indiana and Georgia. So if they liberal hypothesis holds true that voter ID laws suppress minority voters you would expect to see depressed turnout numbers. But numerous studies have shown that states with voter ID rules have increased voter turnout. A University of Missouri study found that voter turnout increased by 2 percent in the state of Indiana. The state – which has a strict photo requirement – saw the number of black voters double from 2004 to 2008 and the number of registered Democrats increased 8.3% in that same period. Georgia, which also has a strict ID law, saw their largest voter turnout in history in 2008 as Democrat turnout jumped over six percent from the previous election according to an American University survey. Similar studies conducted by the University of Delaware and the University of Nebraska-Lincoln have also shown that voter ID laws do not suppress voter turnout.
Yet the anti-ID crowd continues to assert facts not in evidence – facts refuted by evidence – that the commonsense voting integrity measure of showing a photo ID will “suppress” or “disenfranchise” millions of voters. Experience shows otherwise.
“WaPo Sees Vast White-wing Conspiracy in Tea Party Groups Exercising Legal Right to Poll-watch”
Civil Rights History at the DNC
No Voter ID: What they usually won’t tell you up front.
The Washington Post has this letter to the editor that reveals a mindset some won’t share, but hold:
“Hold onto your hats. Here is the solution that will please all: Everybody, yes, everybody, who walks into a polling booth can vote. No proof of identity required. Illegal immigrants, foreign tourists, children — any and all are welcome. The more who vote, the more vibrant our democracy.”
Ouch: “Just 40 percent of voters said Obama deserves reelection.”
A poll by the Hill.
Senate Factor Six – “Once you go black…”
Anybody litigating a Section 2 case in California? If so, click on through to PJ Media for some Senate Factor Six evidence.
Is Voter Fraud “Non-Existent” in New Hampshire, or Do Democrat-Sponsored Laws Make Detection and Prosecution Non-Existent?
“[D]id Democrats pass laws that make it almost impossible to detect voter fraud in New Hampshire?” The answer is yes. “Did Democrats make it legal for people who do not live here to vote here?” The answer is yes. . . Voter Fraud existed and still does, Democrats just made it impossible to observe, to charge, and to prosecute. So when Bill Gardner says it is non-existent, we could just as easily say that if the State made it legal for burglars to enter your home and steal your stuff, that crime would be non-existent as well. . . Of course Bill Gardner has an even bigger problem. There is a good deal of voter fraud occurring that has nothing to do with ID, that he has never been willing to prosecute. Poll workers telling citizens lies about candidates to influence their votes, illegal registration practices, voter checklists with the names of the deceased or folks who have moved away, all forms of fraud that can steal or erase legitimate votes, all of it essentially ignored by Bill Gardner. And as long as he never has to really investigate anyone or anything, he can continue to say vote fraud does not exist. More here.
“Battle over voter ID intensifies as election approaches”
The fight over early-voting and ID laws, which can play a crucial role
in this year’s election given that many of these laws are in key states
such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, has been in the spotlight over the last
two weeks. link.
Ohio attorney general says he will appeal federal “early voting” ruling
In Ohio, the Plain-Dealer reports that Attorney General Dewine will appeal the federal ruling that restores in-person early voting on eve of Election Day.
DeWine said Ohio has always made exceptions for military personnel.
“Since the time of Civil War we’ve made a distinction in this country between the availability and access for people who are in the military versus the rest of us to vote. And we made that distinction because of the unique situation people in the military are in,” DeWine said. “This (law) is not anything new.” He said he will appeal because “My job as attorney general is to defend the laws of the state of Ohio and to defend the right of the state of Ohio to set its own rules and its own laws.”
As with the provisional ballot ruling last month, this is a blatantly
political decision and judicial activism at its worse. Disregarding
precedent and upending state law, the liberal federal judge, at the stroke of a pen, increased the early voting period for a three day period
across the state, imposing additional duties and an unfunded mandate on local and state election
officials without any authority. Instead of striking down a law that somehow violates the equal protection laws, this federal judge created his own revised Ohio law, his own creation of a early voting period, because it must be a new constitutional right to vote early. For everyone. Every day. All weekend.
According to Wikipedia, Judge Peter C. Economus is a Clinton
appointee and he previously worked at the Ohio Legal Assistance
Association. Therefore, there should be no surprise with the activist ruling. This is what we have all come to expect from Ohio’s federal
judges on a whole range of voting issues.