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

The New Frontiers of Vote Fraud

By Barbara Joanna Lucas Capital Research Center The Left seeks power, and at least for the time being, that requires winning elections. So the Left pursues every scheme it can concoct to boost votes for its favored causes and candidates. This report details how the Left not only opposes every law, like voter ID, that aims to ensure honest elections, it is also passing laws and regulations that aim to swamp the polls with Left-friendly voters. And so non-citizens, and illegal immigrants, and underage voters are being welcomed to voting booths, while voter registration and even voting itself are on the road to being made compulsory for every person with a heartbeat. Where does this notion that anyone with a pulse must vote come from? Why is it that even the most modest measures to ensure an election has integrity provoke hysteria from the Left and shameless comparisons to Jim Crow measures that unconstitutionally denied large numbers of Americans the right to vote? The Left has long used shrill rhetoric to stifle many electoral integrity laws across the country. More recently, it has become increasingly emboldened as it parades illegal voters to the polls. There is a simple explanation: Voter fraud and illegal immigrant votes have historically favored Democrats, as we shall see.

ACRU v. Clarke County, Miss — Consent Decree

ALEXANDRIA, VA (Nov. 30, 2015) - The (ACRU) has settled a federal lawsuit against the Clarke County, Mississippi Election Commission, marking the third time a Mississippi county has agreed by consent decree to clean up [...]

Akina, et al. v. State of Hawaii

Hawaii’s Actions “Brazenly” Violate 15th Amendment, Brief States ALEXANDRIA, VA (Nov. 24, 2015) —- An emergency injunction is needed to stop a race-based election now underway in Hawaii and ending Nov. 30, a brief filed [...]

How Democrats Suppress the Vote

By Eitan Hersh (fivethirtyeight.com) In the ongoing fight between Democrats and Republicans over election procedures like voter ID and early voting, the Democrats are supposedly the champions of higher turnout and reducing barriers to participation. But when it comes to scheduling off-cycle elections1 like those taking place today, the Democratic Party is the champion of voter suppression. Indeed, few people will vote today (Nov. 3). Many elections are taking place, but almost all are for local offices. School boards, for example, are up for election in Houston; Fairfax County, Virginia; Charlotte, North Carolina and in hundreds of other communities that oversee the education of millions of schoolchildren. But only a small number of highly engaged voters will participate in the elections for these offices. Scheduling local elections at odd times appears to be a deliberate strategy aimed at keeping turnout low, which gives more influence to groups like teachers unions that have a direct stake in the election's outcome. But before getting into the details of off-cycle elections, consider the parties' basic positions on issues of voter participation. As election law expert Rick Hasen has noted, there is a philosophical divide between the parties. Supposedly, for Republicans, small barriers to participation can help the functioning of a democracy. For instance, in recent years, Republicans have been pushing a requirement that voters present identification when they show up to cast a ballot. They argue that voter ID laws can prevent fraud and foster confidence in the electoral system. But they also argue that if an ID requirement deters people who aren't particularly well-informed or invested in the political process, this might be a net benefit for the electoral system. The Democratic philosophy is different. For Democrats, universal participation is a value: All voices ought to be represented in the electoral sphere, so the government should not put up any unnecessary barriers to participation. Debates over issues like voter ID are politically explosive because each side suspects the other of having a strategic motive, not a philosophical one, for its position. Maybe Republicans want lower turnout not because it yields an informed electorate, but because it favors their side. Maybe Democrats promote higher turnout not because of an ideological commitment to civic engagement, but because higher turnout helps elect Democrats (though there is substantial disagreement on whether that is true). Nowhere are the strategic motivations -- and the hypocritical rhetoric -- of both parties more apparent than in the timing of elections. The election calendar in the United States is an insane mess. Exhibit A is New Jersey. New Jersey holds federal elections with the rest of the country on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of even-numbered years. But elections for state office in New Jersey are held in November of odd-numbered years. School district elections are held on the third Tuesday in April or else in November. And fire district commissioner elections are held on the third Saturday in February. It isn't just New Jersey. Most states -- 44 out of 50 -- hold some state and local elections off the federal cycle. Why? Political scientist Sarah Anzia, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, gives a compelling explanation in an outstanding book published last year. The first point that Anzia makes is that the off-cycle election calendar is not a response to voter preferences; voters do not like taking multiple trips to the voting booth. Anzia asked a nationally representative sample of Americans if they prefer elections held at different times for different offices "because it allows voters to focus on a shorter list of candidates and issues during each election" or all at the same time "because combining the elections boosts voter turnout for local elections." Voters of all political stripes prefer consolidated elections, and by wide margins. But that's especially true for people who identify as Democrats, who prefer consolidated elections 73 percent to 27 percent. Consolidation is popular, and during the decade-long period between 2001 and 2011 that Anzia studied, state legislatures across the country considered over 200 bills aimed at consolidating elections. About half, 102 bills, were focused specifically on moving school board election dates so that they would coincide with other elections. Only 25 became law. The consolidation bills, which were generally sponsored by Republicans, typically failed because of Democratic opposition, according to Anzia. By her account, Democrats opposed the bills at the urging of Democratic-aligned interest groups, namely teachers unions and municipal employee organizations.

Meet the Police Officer Who’s Been Charged with Voter Fraud

By Hans von Spakovsky Call the cops! It looks like someone is committing voter fraud in Indiana again! Ironically, in this case, however, the alleged fraudster who has been arrested by the Indiana State Police was a cop. Unfortunately, even officers who graduate from the Indiana Law Enforcement Academy are capable of violating the public trust by allegedly trying to steal an election. That is the case with Officer Lowell Ross Colen of the Rising Sun Police Department, a small Indiana town of around 2,300 people on the Ohio River across from Kentucky. Colen was apparently an average guy at the police department. According to his chief, Dave Hewitt, Colen was "fairly well liked and very loyal." Hewitt described Colen as the "kind of guy that would come in and put his time in." However, it seems Colen was doing more than providing for the public safety while on duty at the Rising Sun Police Department. Colen wanted individuals to vote for his father, Francis "Swede" Colen, in the 2015 May primary for city council. So, he allegedly proceeded to fill out absentee ballot applications for people who were not even eligible to vote in the election, and then voted with these ballots after he received them from election officials. According to the Indiana State Police Department, he forged the signatures of the supposed voters on some of the documents before turning them into the Ohio County, Ind. clerk's office. In some cases, Officer Colen is even believed to have been in uniform and on duty while committing the acts. In a twist of fate, the voting scofflaw was arrested in his home on charges of official misconduct, forgery, voter fraud and ghost employment. He has been charged with 13 felony counts, and is, of course, entitled to a presumption of innocence, so it remains to be seen what the final disposition will be. Nonetheless, this goes to show that, contrary to what some skeptics say, voting fraud does occur in this country. In local elections with small margins of victory, fraud is especially able to be the deciding factor.

News