PLANK SEPTEMBER 19, 2012
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Colorado Secretary of State Scott Gessler embarrassingly confessed recently that while he had alleged last year that upwards of 11,000 noncitizens were registered to vote in the state, an investigation by his office had turned up only 35 instances of a noncitizen casting a ballot. Like many conservatives who inveigh against the phantom menace of voter fraud, Gessler defended his zeal to patrol the voter rolls by invoking a zero tolerance policy. “Voter fraud is not tolerable, period,” he said. “If [Democrats] want to argue that a little bit of vote fraud is OK, that’s their argument. I think no vote fraud is acceptable.”
For good measure, Gessler also said that Democrats have a “cavalier” attitude toward elections. His word choice caught my eye because I’ve often wondered why conservatives aren’t more concerned about the possibility that efforts to purge voter rolls or require photo ID to vote might actually prevent a registered voter from exercising her constitutional right. I guess it’s easier to be cavalier about that right if you are male and white and never had to fight for it.
Yes, yes, yes—proponents of voter ID laws will say that they are necessary to protect the sanctity of votes. Without them, a scofflaw could cancel out your vote and strip all meaning from the solemn process. That might be a compelling argument, if voter fraud actually turned out to be a common problem. But as Gessler’s own investigation determined, instances of voter fraud are incredibly rare.
News21, a project funded by the Carnegie-Knight Initiative on the Future of Journalism Education, analyzed more than 2,000 cases of alleged voter fraud since 2000 and found that out of hundreds of millions of ballots cast in that time, there were only 633 confirmed incidents of voter fraud. That’s 633 too many for Gessler—and certainly, no one is defending or advocating voter fraud. But given those numbers, it’s hard to argue that any electoral outcome was ever affected by voter fraud.
It’s even more difficult to insist that voter ID laws would result in similarly low numbers of legitimate voters being denied the right to vote. In Pennsylvania, for instance, where today the state’s Supreme Court ordered that a controversial new voter ID law be kicked down to a lower court for review, senior citizens who no longer drive would need to obtain another form of photo ID in order to vote in November. Since 2000, there have been just five cases of voter fraud in Pennsylvania. Without adequate education about the new law and easy access for homebound seniors to obtain new forms of photo identification, it’s extremely likely that more than five voters in just an average Pennsylvania retirement facility would be ineligible to cast their ballots.
By insisting that voter fraud in states like Pennsylvania must be reduced from five instances to zero, no matter what the cost, conservatives like Scott Gessler insist that the collateral damage to legitimate voters is irrelevant. That is what should be unacceptable.
10 comments
Excellent analysis, Ms. Sullivan. Sure, zero-tolerance for voter fraud sounds good, but the "unintended consequence" of defrauding thousands or millions of legitimate voters is somehow "okay"? Collateral damage, indeed. Or perhaps, that "unintended consequence" was the intended consequence all along. And "zero-tolerance" is an Orwellian justification that sounds good, but with an unacceptable cost.
- AllanL5
September 19, 2012 at 11:52am
I think the "unintended consequence" is the intended consequence all along. As we all know, the lead Republican in Pennsylvania bascially said so.
- ballston
September 19, 2012 at 12:13pm
I asked Justice Scalia about "voter fraud" and, after consulting His dictionary, He says the dictionary defines voter fraud as illegal interference with the process of an election, including illegal voter registration, intimidation of voters at the polls, and improper vote counting. Justice Scalia says the dictionary makes a distinction between active and passive conduct, and that merely making it difficult to qualify to vote, by itself, is insufficiently active in the process of an election; hence, it doesn't count. Justice Scalia also says "get over it".
- rayward
September 19, 2012 at 12:32pm
A photo should be required at the point of voter registration. A wireless smartphone or similar device would be provided for all polling places. That way a registered voter could simply spell out their name, address and phone number and last 4 digits of social security #, just as one does when verifying one's identity over the phone or online when shopping, buying a car. It could be a form of universal id which could also including driver's license, etc. We're close to being able to provide that even now, and costs should not be at all prohibitive. It may take a Federal law to mandate a basic id for each individual, which the states could modify or enhance for their own purposes.
- Tgossard
September 19, 2012 at 12:32pm
Per Justice Scalia, why doesn't he shove his ex cathedra remarks up his...well you know what!
- Tgossard
September 19, 2012 at 12:34pm
I think the question to ask these officials is what do they consider the correct ratio of legal votes blocked for every illegal vote that would be cast in the absence of anti-fraud measures?
- sighthnd
September 19, 2012 at 12:59pm
And the honest answer would be "Depends, sighthnd, are they Republican or Democratic? If Republican, then zero-tolerance to any voter being blocked and it's a Democratic conspiracy to steal the election. If Democratic, well, losing the votes of a few lazy freeloaders isn't really a problem."
- AllanL5
September 19, 2012 at 1:10pm
The title makes sense to me because when I think of voter fraud, I don't think of a fraudulent voter succeeding in managing to vote when he wasn't supposed to. I think of a politician who managed to win by cheating.
- Nusholtz
September 19, 2012 at 3:01pm
Thank you, Ms Sullivan, for another excellent piece. There is no clear and present danger; just a bunch of politicians trying everything they can to win another round of elections. I think sighthnd and Allan summarize the sequel to this article perfectly. I think the lower court will have to put the kibosh on the law because I really don't see the Tea Party actively working to undermine the vote restricting laws they just enacted by pushing the state to get those i.d.'s in the hands of the people that needs them.
- GSpinks
September 19, 2012 at 4:58pm
Well, rayward, next time you talk to Justice Scalia would you please ask him about Bush v Gore?
- Sophia
September 19, 2012 at 5:12pm