@ UPI. Voter identification — considered a safeguard against fraud by some and an effort to disenfranchise voters by others — was a hot topic in state legislatures this year. The story then quotes the two sides: In a commentary in The National Review, however, Heritage Foundation senior legal fellow Hans A. von Spakovsky said, “The fraud denialists also must have missed the recent news coverage of the double voters in North Carolina and the fraudster in Tunica County, Miss., … who was sentenced in April to five years in prison for voting in the names of 10 voters, including four who were deceased.” Also untrue, von Spakovsky said, were claims that new voter ID laws and other reforms “designed to protect the integrity of the democratic process” were meant to suppress the votes of Democrats and minorities. Von Spakovsky, a former Federal Election Commission commissioner and a former voting counsel at the U.S. Justice Department, called the Brennan study “dubious” and said the center was a “partisan and unobjective advocacy organization
“Current laws work and ensure the voting process is fair, just, secure and accessible”, the LWV said. “[Evidence] proves that illegal voting is extremely low,” the league said on its Web site. “At the federal level, only 24 people were convicted of voter fraud between 2002 and 2005. Indeed, Americans are twice as likely to get hit by lighting as to have their vote canceled out by a fraudulently cast vote.”
Are voter ID laws protective or restrictive?
@ UPI. Voter identification — considered a safeguard against fraud by some and an effort to disenfranchise voters by others — was a hot topic in state legislatures this year.