Voter ID laws: The cure for a fantasy disease.

[_MeDotOrg]

The ostensible reason for passing strict voter I.D. laws is that is will stop voter fraud.

In Pennsylvania, it is estimated that 758,000 registered voters – between nine and 10 percent of the total -- may be subject to the new photo-ID requirements.

Okay, but this law is going to stop a lot of voter fraud, right? How may cases of voter fraud did Republican Governor Tom Corbett prosecute when he was Pennsylvania's attorney general for 8 years?

Zero. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Gooseegg. Doughnut. Bagel. Zero in 8 years.

So why does Pennsylvania need a strict Voter ID law? It might help to listen to the words of their Republican House Majority Leader Speaker Mike Turzai tells a Republican Committee: "Voter ID - which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania - done."

The Republican vision of plutocracy. Even Fox News is disgusted.

[_bcspace]

How would voter ID laws allow Romney to win? Are you saying that blacks and Hispanics are less capable of obtaining a valid driver's license than whites? Or are you admitting that voter fraud really exists and Democrats are afraid their usual tricks can't be brought to bear? There can only be one correct answer.

[_MeDotOrg]

How would voter ID laws allow Romney to win? Are you saying that blacks and Hispanics are less capable of obtaining a valid driver's license than whites? Or are you admitting that voter fraud really exists and Democrats are afraid their usual tricks can't be brought to bear? There can only be one correct answer.

To quote from Juan Williams' article on Fox:

A suit to block the new law – by the American Civil Liberties Union – has been filed on behalf of a 93-year-old great grandmother who has voted in nearly every election for the past 60 years but who is unable to obtain the photo ID necessary for her to vote this year.

Now, I'm not sure if this 93 year old great-grandmother is black, hispanic or white. Nor am I sure of the racial identity of the 758,000 registered voters that may be effected by the law.

I AM sure that there were no prosecutions by then attorney general Tom Corbett for voter fraud. Again, to quote from the Juan Williams article:

In 2007 a New York Times story on the Bush Justice Department’s effort to find and punish voter fraud reported that the Justice Department “has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.” The reporters found: “Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process.” But the reporters concluded that after five years only 86 people in the whole nation had been convicted and most of those involved misunderstandings of the rules, not intentional fraud.

I would ask you: If there is no proof of any significant voter fraud:

1. Why pass a law that would potentially disenfranchise (very conservatively) thousands of voters when there is no proof of fraud? If there is no proof of fraud, why make voting more difficult, unless to discourage people from voting?

2. Why would the Republican House Majority Leader Speaker Mike Turzai tells a Republican Committee: "Voter ID - which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania - done."?

[_EAllusion]

Demographics that lean (in some cases quite strongly) Democratic have a disproportionately harder time meeting the new voter ID requirements, therefore you are likely to see a smaller portion of them voting. Groups like blacks and hispanics already are much less likely to have the required ID's and are much more likely to have challenges finding time and transportation to get them. Yes, even when the ID's are free, it can still be quite a hassle for some people to get them. Make group A have more of a hassle than group B in going to the polls, and you will naturally get less A than B. That's the whole point of the laws. They're the modern cousin of poll taxes, literacy tests, and the like.