There Is No Voter Fraud In Tennessee (Or Any Other State)

When the ridiculous notion that new, photographic Voter IDs were needed in every state of our nation, the most cursory examinations of voting records clearly indicated such laws and IDs were totally unnecessary, that no large scale fraud existed.

Now - as legislatures across the nation have made the decision to require these IDs - we get a formal, comprehensive study which plainly reveals what we already knew ... there just isn't any fraud to combat at all:

"News21, a part of the Carnegie-Knight Initiative on the Future of Journalism Education focused on investigative reporting, analyzed 2,608 alleged election-fraud cases, going back to 2000, mined from thousands of public records requests, in all 50 states. (You can peruse the resulting database here.) In all, they found just 10 cases of voter impersonation, or, "one out of about every 15 million prospective voters" during that time."

"In Tennessee, the study turned up 14 total cases of reported fraud since 2000, none of which were cases of voter impersonation. The city of Memphis filed a lawsuit last week, challenging the state's voter ID law on constitutional grounds."

Imagine that one person, let's say his name was Bob, and back in 2002, Bob ate a chicken salad sandwich that was rotten and it killed him, and every state in the nation voted to outlaw chicken salad sandwiches, even though no one can find anyone named Bob who died after eating a rotten chicken salad sandwich - that's pretty much what the bogus Voter ID law is built on - mindless fear.

In Pennsylvania, just as a case against the implementation of the law, the state has agreed the law is utterly without merit or necessity and is likely illegal:

"... state officials conceded that they had no evidence of prior in-person voter fraud, or even any reason to believe that such crimes would occur with more frequency if a voter ID law wasn't in effect.

"There have been no investigations or prosecutions of in-person voter fraud in Pennsylvania; and the parties do not have direct personal knowledge of any such investigations or prosecutions in other states,” the statement reads."

 The goal of the law, sadly, has been achieved - it will stop many from voting and will confuse the rest of us. It is not about fraud - it is a rollback to the days of when only white, adult males with property are allowed to vote. And that is not American at all. Shame on every legislator who approved these laws.

Maybe You Can Vote, Maybe Not

Certain Tennesseans will have a tougher time voting next year, thanks to a Big Government push from state Republicans (and their out-of-state lobbyists like ALEC).

Via Knox Views, State Senator Roy Herron writes that his mother is one person among many who will have to pay to get the ID the state now demands, but only half the state's counties provide a way to get the necessary ID:

"Only 43 of Tennessee’s 95 counties have such centers. Half the counties in West Tennessee, and two-thirds of the counties in my state Senate district, don’t have them. Some of the rural Tennesseans I represent will have to drive from their county through a second county and into a third to reach the closest driver’s license center — a trip of 40 to 60 miles each way. Taking a day off work and with gas averaging $3.58 a gallon, even at minimum wage the expense of travel and lost wages will cost people perhaps an additional $80 to $100 to exercise their constitutional right to vote.

This cost of this process—in many cases totaling $110 to $135, if not more — is such a burden that for many voters it will amount to disenfranchisement.

My Republican colleagues claim this legislation is necessary to prevent voter fraud, citing a state Senate election in Memphis in 2005 in which votes were recorded from two deceased people. But the fact is that the culprits in that case were dishonest election workers, not voters. Photo ID cards would not solve that problem."

Here's a map of state locations to get a new voter ID.

It seems clear the simplest way to create a photo ID for voters would have been to alter the current voter registration card issued by counties to include a photo. That would cost money - so rather than the state fund it, you now have to pay for the changes. (Either way, residents are paying). Even better, require each county's election office to verify applicants who want to register to vote (which they already do).

There is no proof voting fraud is widespread. Supporters of the new ID say that lack of proof is itself suspicious. The end result of this change seems clear - many voters, already discouraged in participating in voting, have now another reason to sit out the next election.

Sen. Ron Ramsey says he'll give anyone who needs a ride to a photo ID location, if they call and ask for a ride. So, see, your elected officials will help you if you ask for help and, in their opinion, deserve it. Thanks soooooo much.

Rating Obama: Don't Get Fooled

Only a Democrat would face re-election doubts after successfully tracking down and killing Osama bin Laden.

President Obama, it seems, was viewed by some as possessing a magic wand to correct all the massive mistakes from the previous 10 years of Republican-led governing. It is good to see the public at large knows where the trouble lies - in Congress, which gets a 12% approval rating. Still, some rail against Obama, who rates at least 43% approval. Guess which story gets more attention?

Some say he's done little to nothing to change Washington or its policies. Here's a brief look at some accomplishments.

* American job creation is better now than when Bush left office.

* American economic growth is better now than when Bush left office.

* Al Qaeda is dramatically weaker now than when Bush left office.

* The American automotive industry is vastly stronger now than when Bush left office.

* The struggle for equality of the LGBT community is vastly better now than when Bush left office.

* The U.S. health care system is better and more accessible than when Bush left office.

* The federal budget deficit is better now than when Bush left office.

* The major Wall Street indexes and corporate profits are better now than when Bush left office.

* International respect for the United States is better now than when Bush left office.

In truth, I want more things changed - close that Guantanamo prison, end the wars, enhance the much-needed restructuring overseas and at home for roads and schools and business. So much needs repairing in the US - from roads to the economy to basic civil liberties - that indeed just negativity is swaying voters.

Negativity gorges itself in hard times.

Mostly, it seems closed minds, petty revenge tactics and election dreams from Republicans and Tea Party folk, all continue to hold America in a static and losing position.

And as always, Americans most often forget that the decisions made at the state and local level are the ones which determine much of the way we run our education and economic systems. Blaming all ills on one single elected official is juvenile, whether the blame is aimed at a Democrat or Republican. Our job forever remains holding the highest standards of performance and accountability for all our elected officials.

Lately, state leaders in Tennessee and across the country have followed to designs of a single lobbying group, which has the seemingly innocent name of ALEC, to change how Americans vote and where voting districts are. Those changes rise far more from the hopes of getting elected and not serving the citizens:

More on the changes on how you vote here.

Court Rejects Voter ID Challenge

By a vote of 6 to 3, the US Supreme Court rejected a challenge to Indiana's Voter ID law on Monday.

In one sense the court left open challenges to Voter ID cases, but also placed emphasis on states to resolve election issues.

Two good case assessments from the SCOTUS blog note:

"The voter ID ruling may turn out to be a significant victory for Republicans at election time, since the requirement for proof of identification is likely to fall most heavily on voters long assumed to be identified with the Democrats — particularly, minority and poor voters. The GOP for years has been actively pursuing a campaign against what it calls “voter fraud,” and the Court’s ruling Monday appears to validate that effort, at least in part. The main opinion said states have a valid interest in preventing voting by those not entitled to do so, even if there is no specific proof of that kind of fraud in the state.

While the Court’s main opinion said it was “fair to infer that partisan considerations may have played a significant role” in enacting the photo ID law, it went on to say that that law was neutral in its application and was adequately supported by the justifications the state had offered."

That's from their initial report. Here's the analysis today:

"Democrats argued that voter impersonation is rare and that voter ID requirements, by making voting a more onerous task, actually tend to undermine public confidence in elections; Republicans submitted evidence that, they asserted, demonstrated the precise opposite. The Court made clear that such factual disputes should be decided by legislatures, not courts. The court exhibited the same hands-off attitude that it has exhibited toward redistricting disputes in recent years."

I'd expect more states to quickly adopt Voter ID laws, where challenges may be pushed forward on the local levels and appeals may bring the issue back to the Supreme Court further down the line.

As this post says, more challenges to such ID laws are almost being invited by the court:

"The lack of a majority opinion, moreover, injects some uncertainty into the appropriate standard for reviewing other challenges to onerous election laws. The Court’s specific split in this case will blunt charges that this is a politicized 5-4 decision — and it is significant that the Court, once again, has failed to cite to its opinion in Bush v. Gore."

It's Your Right To Vote - Or Is It?

Do you, as an American citizen, have a Constitutional Right to vote?

The answer may depend on how the U.S. Constitution is interpreted (some say) or if you give a state constitution more authority. The majority of state constitutions do explicitly state that citizens have a right to vote, which is the case in Tennessee, where the state's constitution says in Article IV, Section 1:

"Every person, being eighteen years of age, being a citizen of the United States, being a resident of the state for a period of time as prescribed by the General Assembly, and being duly registered in the county of residence for a period of time prior to the day of any election as prescribed by the General Assembly, shall be entitled to vote in all federal, state, and local elections held in the county or district in which such person resides. All such requirements shall be equal and uniform across the state, and there shall be no other qualification attached to the right of suffrage."

In his opinion on the Gore v. Bush case in the 2000 election, Justice Anthony Scalia made reference to voting rights and the electoral college:

" ... the individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States ..."

And so much argument has been offered from his view, but linking how the electoral college works to the individuals right to vote is more than stretching for comparisons, as I see it. Still, the argument is made that American citizens don't have a right to vote (see the comments from Nashville's MCB, where the consensus is .... mixed, or at best confused), and that the current voter ID system must be changed.

If the right to vote is not explicitly stated, is it implicit, since we have several amendments declaring a voter cannot be discriminated (or eliminated) due to race, sex or age?

That issue is sure to be a topic in the presentation of a case before the Supreme Court this week challenging the very strict Voter ID Law adopted in Indiana. Also key to the presentation is that no evidence has yet been provided in the case to show that the Indiana Law would/could/does prevent voter fraud.

An excellent overview of the case was presented by American Constitutional Society last week in a panel forum which you can access right here.

There is a push in some states to adopt a federal constitutional amendment explicitly stating a right to vote.

Seems to me there are many inherent problems in deciding to make voting regulations/rights a federal and not a state issue. And I wonder too if much of the debate over IDs and rights to vote have a larger agenda in mind. All the studies I've seen make it clear that voting fraud is almost always a problem with absentee ballots and seldom at a polling location, as each state has specific laws already in place regarding IDs to be presented before casting a ballot.

The outcome of the Supreme Court case may not be offered until late fall of this year - just prior to the presidential election day. Again, odd timing in my mind.

The problem isn't voter fraud in the US, it's voter participation. And who benefits in a conflicting debate on whether or not we have a right to vote? Are hopes that a confused voter will be a non-voter in evidence here?

See Also:
TennViews
The Crone Speaks