The D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics on Tuesday condemned a hidden-camera stunt that shows a man inquiring about voting as U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. at a city polling precinct during the April 3 primary elections.
Well I reckon to hell they DID! The sting made them look like the idiots they are. I find it hysterical that the polling personnel in the District of Columbia didn’t even know that HOLDER IS BLACK! I can also imagine that Andrew Breitbart is laughing his butt of wherever he is.
Eric Holder is a fool and a tool for Barack Obama. I believe he’s the A.G. simply because he knows where the bodies are buried and he’s willing to carry Obama’s water. Holder’s implied policy is that the DOJ will not prosecute ‘black crime’ while dismissing VIDEO EVIDENCE of Black Panthers intimidating voters. Sorta pokes a stick in the eye of Obama’s promise to run a transparent, ETHICAL administration, but anyone who drank THAT koolade deserves to be intimidated at the polls. But I digress.
‘Democrats — led by Obama and Holder — claim that the move is a GOP ruse to suppress minority voting.’ They say that requiring photo I.D. will disenfranchise 5 million voters. Holder is also trying to imply a racial component by using the utterly insulting implication that ‘minority voters are incapable of or ill-equipped to obtain identification.’
My position is that NOT requiring photo I.D. disenfranchises the other 295 million of us.
Then please provide evidence that voter fraud that could be prevented by an ID card actually exists. I will wait patiently over the next month while you look for it.
Steve
Here is the rather astonishing video of the event in question:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5p70YbRiPw
please provide evidence that voter fraud that could be prevented by an ID card actually exists.
My good Steve,
What you are asking for is proof of voter fraud which has already been caught as voter fraud by means other than by the implementation of a Voter ID card, the absence of which already-discovered-by-means-other-than-by-Voter ID voter fraud you patiently await apparently means to you there is no need to discover previously undiscovered voter fraud by means superior to those means being employed now, such as by a Voter ID card.
If this misstates your comment, please correct me.
H. M. Stuart
Alexandria
I listened to a long discussion of this topic on an NPR program some time ago while driving to Fairfax, VA. Both sides were represented and made their case with minimal interruption or name calling (unlike most political discussion these days). However, neither side appeared to have much of a case to support. For example, the supporter of requiring photo ID cards demonstrated how easy it is to have such a card by telling how during a talk at a high school, she asked who had photo IDs. Of course, numerous hands were held up. She checked what some of the cards were and many were job cards from their work. The problem is that the question to ask would be who does NOT have a card and why not. Since voting would require a state issued card, work and school IDs would not avail. The opponent for ID cards had similarly weak examples of how difficult it is to get a photo ID for some persons and seemed unable to explain why it would be impossible to go for a card but possible to travel out to vote.
The data I have seen appear to show minimal evidence of voter fraud in elections. We hear numerous case reports of examples but little data. There have been examples of fraud in the past, Chicago in the Kennedy/Nixon election comes to mind. However, that is seemingly less of an issue than in the past. We do see major problems in handling of ballots. Examples have included not accepting absentee ballots from soldiers stationed overseas because those ballots do not have a stamp, hanging chads, miscounting, overly exuberant “challenges” and dismissal of ballots and related issues. Perhaps we should be expending more funds on securing ballots that have been cast. At the same time, I cannot understand why we should not be showing some form of identification. My polling site will not look at it even though I have it out and show it to them.
[...] Voter Fraud? nawwwwwwwww (aleksandreia.com) [...]
Some years ago, back when I ran a legal aid office in a Puerto Rican neighborhood, I was consulted by a woman who had been born in rural PR back in the 1950s or thereabouts, and had never been issued a birth certificate. Now she was applying for SS Disability, and they were refusing even to open a case on her without a birth certificate (of course, back then, we did not realize that lack of a particular KIND of birth certificate would have rendered her ineligible to be President.) She was baffled by the whole thing–”Of COURSE I was born,” she said. “Here I am!” Apparently one of the human rights included in the UN Charter is documentation of one’s birth, existence, and legal status. The folks in the backwoods of PR had probably never heard of such a right. There are probably places in mainland US where people still don’t have birth certificates. So, yes, the situation is uncommon, and results in many consequences besides, and often worse than, voting problems. We should be attacking the failure of governments to issue photo ID, not the failure of individuals to have it and present it upon demand of some other government agency.
The pathetic fact is that there is no evidence of widespread voting fraud, and even less that what fraud does exist would be prevented by photo ID. Traditional voting fraud relied on compliant precinct supervisors who could simply write in whatever results they wanted on the final tally with complete impunity, because the local police owed their patronage jobs to the ward captain. The other reliable method was to line up real live bodies, most of them eligible voters, who would compliantly march to the polls and vote as they were told. Photo ID would be no obstacle to either one.
Today, real instances of possible fraud tend to involve real or imagined allegations of massive bags of ballots discovered in some out of the way place, presumably for the purpose of stuffing into the counting or recounting process. Photo ID is no bar to this method either. Having worked at the polls a few times, I know that there are a number of protocols for having ballots scanned by machine, counting how many voters appeared to vote, how many ballots the machine received, how many votes each candidate got, etc., which would make “stuffing” quite difficult. Again, photo ID has nothing to do with either commission or prevention.
The notion that large numbers of fraudsters are showing up at polling places impersonating registered voters, who find when they go to vote that their ballot has already been cast, is simply fiction. It isn’t happening, anywhere.
As for the pathetic Keystone Militants who besmirch the name of Huey P. Newton by calling themselves the “New Black Panthers,” their laughable disorderly conduct, which deterred nobody, although it may have puffed up their own egos a bit, is suitable for handling by the local police in a municipal court. There is no reason the federal Dept. of Justice should be looking at it.