• Twitter
  • Facebook
News-Sentinel.com Your Town. Your Voice.
Opening Arguments


Hey, we don't need no stinkin' photo IDs:


"Let's not beat around the bush: The ... voter photo ID law is a not-too-thinly-veiled attempt to discourage election-day turnout by certain folks believed to skew Democratic."

That's not be me talking. It's the late federal Appeals Court Judge Terence Evans, left, writing in 2007. In fact, it's the first words of his opinion leading to his conclusion that photo ID laws are driven by partisanship. Evans voted to strike down the Indiana law that was then before him.

But Evans view didn't prevail. He was outvoted 2-1 in the 7th Circuit panel hearing the case.

[. . .]

As you can guess by the chapter title, Hasen believes and argues convincingly that supporters of voter photo ID laws who argue that they are trying to combat a significant form of voter fraud are themselves the frauds. The problem of criminals impersonating voters simply doesn't exist in any serious numbers, certainly not in numbers that would affect an election result.

On the other hand:


A new study finds that nearly 2 million dead people remain on voter registration rolls. So tell us again why Democrats oppose voter ID laws that would help prevent these errant registrations from being exploited?

The Pew Center on the States study found that our country's voter registration system is "plagued with errors and inefficiencies." That's putting it mildly.

As many as 24 million registrations are invalid or contain significant errors, including almost 3 million who are registered in two or more states and 1.8 million dead people still listed as active voters.

[. . .]

Democrats make two bogus arguments. First, that ballot fraud isn't "widespread" enough to merit the new requirement, as though there's such a thing as a tolerable level of fraud. Second, that picture ID laws would suppress voter turnout among minorities.

If one side is doing something for "partisan" reasons, it is, you know, quite likely that the other side is as well. Startling!


Thu, 02/16/2012 - 11:47am

It isn't enough to indicate through a change in typographical style that a few graphs are a quote taken from someplace - you need to tell us where it came from.

Furthermore, simply labeling an argument bogus, e.g., that voter ID laws suppress minority turnout, doesn't actually make the argument bogus.

A first-year philosophy student would rip this post to tatters.

Harl Delos
Thu, 02/16/2012 - 12:08pm

Leo links to the items he quotes when introducing an eccerpt, littlejohn.  He's been doing that for years.

If you want to argue against the post, you could mock the inability of the GOP to count the votes in, say, Iowa or Maine. It's starting to smell to high heavens.

But your criticism of Leo's post is absurd.

Thu, 02/16/2012 - 4:25pm

The easiest way to commit voter fraud is through absentee voting, and that's how the voter fraud cases I know of -- that is, the ones in which people were charged and convicted in court -- happened. The ID requirement most likely does not stop voter fraud. It can, however, intimidate people who don't carry driver's licenses -- many of whom live in poorer areas and might be likely to vote Democratic -- from voting.

Thu, 02/16/2012 - 9:36pm

Harl, I appreciate the correction.

But does it not strike anyone as significant that absolutely every American politician - without exception - who supports the voter ID laws is a Republican? Is this a coincidence? Do Democrats favor voter fraud?

It is utterly transparent that the people most likely to have trouble obtaining a photo ID are people who don't have driver's licenses: The very young, the very old and the very poor. In other words, people likely to vote Democratic.

Obviously you all know this. It's just silly to pretend you don't. Politicians of both parties seek to boost turnout of their supporters and discourage turnout of their opponents. It is perfectly obvious what is happening here, and if you keep denying it you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Tim Zank
Fri, 02/17/2012 - 5:14pm

Littlejohn, your query "Do Democrats favor voter fraud?" obviously answers itself.  Of course they do, they are notorious for it. There simply is no logical reason NOT to have an I.D. to vote, especially when the I.D. is provided FREE OF CHARGE.


Absolutely no one is disenfranchised (Indiana is proof) and it is absolutely fair. To let a bus load full of homeless people that are plyed with booze and cigs (by the local democratic party) pull up to 3 or 4 polling places and cast a vote without I.D. simply shouldn't be allowed anymore. You've been doing it for decades, it's time to stop.


Harl Delos
Fri, 02/17/2012 - 11:31pm

Tim, I'm surprised and gratified to find that there is no cost to obtain the required identification to vote in Indiana.  When sending off for a birth certificate from whatever state the person was born in, does the applicant indicate that the cost should be billed to the Indiana DMV, or to the county board of elections, or does the applicant have to front the money, and get a rebate from the DMV when he gets a photo ID?

When I married, I took my wife's surname. I simply swapped my card at the local SSA for one with my new name, and my driver's license was up for renewal in a couple of months, so my new one had my new one had my new name, neither one asking for any documentation.  However, my wife noted about a year ago that the District Justice who performed the marriage didn't include the year on the certificate.  If I were to move back to Indiana, isn't demanding legal proof of my name change a violation of the constitution requirement that states give full faith and credit to other states acts, since Pennsylvania finds my current name to be acceptable?

Mon, 02/20/2012 - 11:29am

Tim, your assertion that Dems routinely bring in voters, whom they have bribed, by the busload is the sort of extraordinary claim that demands extraordinary evidence. Not every media outlet is liberal - just look at this newspaper. Why hasn't the N-S written an investigative piece about the busloads of liquored-up, chain-smoking Democrats? (I'm surprised you didn't throw in "child-molesting" to complete the caricature.) I'm sure Leo, or any other journalist, would assure you that would be a front-page story and a Pulitzer-Prize candidate. Assertions of "common knowledge" don't count as evidence. Either provide hard evidence, or withdraw your accusation of felonious behavior. The only case of voter fraud I'm aware of in this state involved the Republican secretary of state. Maybe you missed the story.