Voter ID

Requiring voters to prove they are who they say they are in order to cast a ballot is a simple, common-sense measure that helps ensure honest elections.

Opponents of photo ID falsely charge that such requirements discriminate against poor and minority voters. Each time this claim has been used in the courts, plaintiffs have failed to produce evidence of any individual who was actually denied the right to vote for lack of a photo ID. Despite this fact, and that all demographic groups including African-Americans support voter ID laws, accusations of Jim Crow, the racist system that disenfranchised Southern blacks for generations, continue to be hurled with abandon.

The Supreme Court has stated that because voter ID is free, the inconveniences of going to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering applicable documents, or posing for a photograph are not substantial burdens on most voters’ right to vote. Nor do they represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting — registering or driving to a polling place. If people show up without an ID, they can cast a provisional ballot and bring in their ID later.

The Supreme Court found that the interests in requiring voter ID are unquestionably relevant in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process as part of a nationwide effort to improve and modernize election procedures criticized as antiquated and inefficient.

In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008), the Supreme Court also noted the particular interest in preventing voter fraud in response to the problem of voter registration rolls with a large number of names of persons who are either deceased or no longer live in Indiana. While the trial record contained no evidence that “in-person voter impersonation at polling places had actually occurred in Indiana, such fraud had occurred in other parts of the country, and Indiana’s own experience with voter fraud in a 2003 mayoral primary demonstrates a real risk that voter fraud could affect a close election’s outcome.”

The Supreme Court noted that there was no question that the state had a legitimate and important interest in counting only eligible voters’ ballots. Lastly the Court noted that the state interest in protecting public confidence in elections also has independent importance because such voter confidence encourages citizen participation in the democratic process.

Using a photo ID for voting is a central recommendation from the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform, headed by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker. Here’s what the commission’s official report says:

“A good registration list will ensure that citizens are only registered in one place, but election officials still need to make sure that the person arriving at a polling site is the same one that is named on the registration list. In the old days and in small towns where everyone knows each other, voters did not need to identify themselves. But in the United States, where 40 million people move each year, and in urban areas where some people do not even know the people living in their own apartment building let alone their precinct, some form of identification is needed.”

The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters. Photo IDs currently are needed to board a plane, enter federal buildings, and cash a check. Voting is equally important.”

ACRU Commentary

Hans von Spakovsky: Merrick Garland’s misleading voting claims – what AG gets wrong about US elections | Fox News

Partisan, political, designed to inflame. That’s what Merrick Garland’s recent speech on voting rights was. It certainly was not objective, measured and deliberate – the kind of speech you expect from an attorney general. What’s worse, his central assertion – that state efforts to improve the integrity of the election process will make it "harder" for eligible citizens to vote – is demonstrably false.

Von Spakovsky: Another Bill to Give Partisan Bureaucrats Control Over State Election Laws

One of the false narratives constantly pushed by liberals is that the efforts of states to reform and fix vulnerabilities in their election systems are somehow examples of “voter suppression.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Making sure that every eligible citizen is able to vote and that their vote is not lost or stolen through fraud or errors is not voter suppression—it is good governance.

News

American Constitutional Rights Union Celebrates SCOTUS Decision Protecting Election Integrity

The American Constitutional Rights Union (ACRU) applauds a 6-3 ruling of the Supreme Court re-affirming states’ authority to manage their own elections and protect the integrity of their residents’ most fundamental right — voting. ACRU submitted an amicus brief in support of Arizona’s voting integrity measures. “Free and fair elections is a fundamental principle we must protect,” notes ACRU President Lori Roman. “Why does the left continue to oppose the basic election integrity tenet of ‘Easy to vote, hard to cheat?’ We’re pleased the Supreme Court has taken a stand to preserve one of our most fundamental rights.”

Democrats’ partisan power grab fails — for now

The Democrats’ bill to federalize elections failed. Our constitutional republic was the big winner. S. 1 fell short of the 60-vote threshold required. Thank goodness for the filibuster. The proposal was a revolutionary rearrangement of the American political system.

Forbes Censors Video of Congressional Testimony about non-citizen voters across America

Forbes News self-censored a 48 hour old YouTube video on their channel this morning at approximately 10am ET that contained the congressional hearing testimony of Ms Lori Roman, President of the American Constitutional Rights Union ACRU, who appeared before Rep. G.K. Butterfield's (D-NC) Sub Committee on Elections to warn that across the country voter rolls are...