Voter Fraud: Integrity Vs. Inconvenience

Connie Benjamin gives a hypothetical scenario in her Omaha World-Herald Public Pulse letter (January 23). She says an 80-year old Nebraskan would be able to fill out a provisional ballot, only to have to return to the Election Commissioner’s office within ten days. That is simply not fact. Current law already establishes that there is no requirement to return to the Election Commissioner and LB 239 as amended does nothing to change that.

I have listened to reasonable objections that several organizations such as the League of Women’s Voters and AARP have raised about the bill, and worked to amend the objected sections out of the bill. Despite this, several organizations are purposely trying to misinform about LB 239, and the facts need to be given so that the public understands the importance of this bill.

These organizations opposed to LB 239 say that any voter ID laws are excessively burdensome. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of an Indiana voter ID law in the 2008 case Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. In writing the majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens–long considered a liberal cornerstone of the court–said “the inconvenience of making a trip to the Bureau of Motor Vehicles, gathering the required documents, and posing for a photograph surely does not qualify as a substantial burden on the right to vote, or even represent a significant increase over the usual burdens of voting.” In regards to all the hypothetical scenarios that could be thrown out there, Justice Stevens added, “And even assuming that the burden may not be justified as to a few voters, that conclusion is by no means sufficient” to invalidate the entire law.

As the Supreme Court was deliberating the Crawford case, American Civil Rights Union attorney Peter Ferrara noted, “the slight burden of additional paperwork for a fraction of one percent, to show who they are and thereby prove their eligibility to vote, cannot come close to outweighing the interests of all legitimate legal voters in maintaining their effective vote.”

A 2005 bipartisan Commission on Election Reform, headed by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker III, found no evidence that requiring photo IDs would suppress the minority vote. In addition to this, the panel recommended a national photo ID system and a national campaign to register voters.

Another argument made against voter ID laws is that they are unnecessary due to “relatively low incidence of voter fraud”. In the Crawford case, Justice Stevens said, “That flagrant examples of [voter] fraud…have been documented throughout this nation’s history by respected historians and journalists…demonstrates that not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

Justice Stevens received some criticism of his majority opinion, because he included a quote that drew references to the “Boss Tweed” days of Tammany Hall in New York City. Those who say that couldn’t happen in this day and age need to remember that in 2011 alone, there were investigations, indictments or convictions for vote fraud in California, Texas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina and Maryland. We are only three states into the 2012 Presidential Primary and Caucus season, and there have already been charges of voter fraud in all three states. Those who say we’ve never had vote fraud in Nebraska need only go read up on Omaha’s own political boss Tom Dennison to find out Nebraska had large amounts of corruption in the 1900′s.

Justice Stevens also added this in his Crawford opinion: “Public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process has independent significance because it encourages citizen participation in the democratic process.”

Integrity in the election process should be important to every American, and current polls show that it is. A December 2011 poll by Rasmussen says that 70 percent of likely voters believe we should have voter ID laws. Among Hispanics–the fastest-growing voting block nationwide–Resurgent Republic found overwhelming support for voter ID laws in a September 2011 poll. AARP would do well to contact their members before issuing a blanket statement against LB 239, because the overwhelming majority of seniors who have contacted my office are very much in favor of it.

LB 239 attempts to add integrity to our election process. Opponents argue that a very small percentage of Nebraskans might possibly be inconvenienced.

Integrity vs. inconvenience.

What should be our priority when dealing with something as important as our election process?

If you have any questions about LB 239 or would like to show support for the bill, please go to www.stopvotefraud.net.