l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 By Elise Cooper
A basic and elementary right of every American is to be able to vote without
being intimidated and to make sure that he or she is not disenfranchised.
The Department of Justice has exclusively chosen laws it wants to uphold,
yet it looks the other way on laws that need to be enforced. Because Eric
Holder's Justice Department refuses to protect the integrity of the election
process, the states must step in and fulfill that responsibility. American
Thinker interviewed experts to get their opinion on how to make sure voters
are not disenfranchised.
Throughout the U.S., there have been numerous incidents of voter fraud. In
Troy, New York, a local 2009 election was "thrown" when numerous signatures
were forged on absentee ballots. This past January, Project Veritas
reporters attempted to vote in New Hampshire by giving the names of deceased
registered voters.
Voter registration fraud is becoming a common practice. ACORN employees
were convicted of trying to register dead people and of making up voters.
Catherine Engelbrecht, who heads the organization True The Vote, which
monitors and attempts to stop corruption in the election process, noted that
in Milwaukee, 126% of the eligible population is registered to vote;
Florida has 29,000 dead people on their voter roles, and in Texas,
approximately 1,400 people are registered at the same P.O. Box. Kris Kobach
, the Kansas secretary of state, told American Thinker that in Colorado,
approximately 11,000 legal aliens registered to vote, with about 5,000
casting ballots in the 2010 elections, and that former Missouri Senator Kit
Bond (R), to prove a point, was able to register his dog as a voter.
Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-CA) is frustrated over the issue of voter
registration since "in many states there are registration people that are
being paid for every person that they register to vote. There is a
financial incentive to have non-citizens register to vote. In California it
's totally on the honor system. Once someone is registered, no one checks.
Someone illegally voting could cancel out your vote. In Holder's Justice
Department, the integrity of the electoral process doesn't matter."
There have been elections where someone has won by a few votes. Nebraska
State Senator Charlie Janssen (R) reported that some of his colleagues won
by fewer than a hundred votes. South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson
(R) concurs and notes that in Florence, South Carolina, the mayor lost by
one vote, and in the 1990s, a house member lost his congressional race by 70
votes, with 140 ballots having an X as a signature. He asked, "Is it that
those people could not write, or was someone in the back room voting and
putting Xs on those ballots?"
Attorney General Eric Holder speaks about his commitment to have "equal
opportunity and equal justice ... and to prevent discrimination in our
election systems." However, there are those who argue that this applies to
only one race.
J. Christian Adams, a former Department of Justice attorney in the Voting
Section, wrote the book Injustice about this issue. He directly commented,
"Holder is not race-neutral in enforcing these issues and is very much at
odds with American values. Race comes first for Holder." This is no more
obvious than when Holder's Justice Department dropped the lawsuit against
the New Black Panthers that had already gone to default. In 2008 and 2010,
a few New Black Panthers, dressed in battle fatigues and armed with
nightsticks, intimidated voters by standing outside a voting location.
Adams believes that this Justice Department is openly hostile toward
bringing cases against minorities who violate the law. Kobach is outraged
that the "DOJ does not go after voter intimidation and does not care to stop
voter fraud."
Since Holder is negligent in his duties, many states have taken up the cause
of preventing voter fraud. Currently, thirty-one states require voters to
show some form of ID before voting in person, with fifteen of these states
requiring a photo ID. There is pending legislation is some states to either
implement a photo ID law or to amend the law to require a photo ID instead
of a non-photo ID. For those states referenced below, someone can vote
provisionally as long as he provides ID within a certain amount of days
after the election. There are also exceptions made for the elderly or
incapacitated. The states will provide an ID free of cost. Yet Holder and
the Justice Department make the claim that these laws have "a racially
discriminatory effect."
Arizona was one of the first states to require an ID in order to vote. A
legitimate substitute for a photo ID is having two different forms of ID
that include the name and address of the voter. Governor Jan Brewer felt
that the DOJ should step out of the way and allow states to implement laws
that cater to their constituents. She wants to make sure that "every vote
is counted and not disenfranchised by voter fraud. We take this very
seriously in Arizona because we have an open border." During the course of
the interview, she also noted that she recently signed a bill to permit a
pilot program to go forward that will allow someone to register to vote
online with proof of a driver's license. She does not see a problem with
voter fraud since Arizona requires proof of citizenship to receive a driver'
s license.
Texas was a state that amended its law to require a photo ID to vote, and
many of Texas's rules are similar to Arizona's, Georgia's, and Indiana's.
Because Texas is a state covered under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act,
it needs clearance for its voter ID laws from either the DOJ or federal
court.
The argument by Holder is that the Texas law suppresses the vote since there
are those who do not have a photo ID. Engelbrecht believes that "Eric
Holder has a different set of lenses that he looks through, and
unfortunately, these lenses are tainted with a radical agenda. He looks at
a certain group of Americans as the perpetual victim. Holder is following
through on his promise that no election law will be put in place unless it
heavily favors minorities." Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX) cannot understand
how Holder and his Justice Department would not support a law that "only
represses fraudulent votes."
South Carolina is having the same problem with the DOJ; South Carolina
Attorney General Wilson told American Thinker that he thinks the DOJ "has
misapplied and abused Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. They have a
double standard." He cites their claim that since 10% of African-Americans
have no photo ID, they are being suppressed. But Wilson believes that the
percentage is even lower -- negligible, in fact -- since the number used
included those who have died, those who are no longer residents, and those
whose names are listed in different ways (e.g., Billy as opposed to William).
Wilson plans on challenging the DOJ's decision in the Court of Appeals
within the next few weeks. He commented that he would make the argument
that "our citizens should have the same protections given to the citizens of
Indiana, upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court, and Georgia, pre-cleared by the
DOJ in 2005. We will take it as high up as possible and make as much noise
as possible. Unfortunately, we have to fight these battles because of the
DOJ's agenda and ideology."
Kansas, in 2011, passed a photo ID law that is considered one of the
strongest in the country, in addition to a law, which will hopefully be in
place by June of this year, requiring proof of citizenship for those
registering to vote. Since it is not a Section 5 state, Kansas did not need
to get clearance, and the DOJ cannot unilaterally prevent Kansas's laws
from being implemented. This is one of the few states that address the
problem of absentee voter fraud. According to Secretary of State Kobach, if
one votes by absentee ballot, a driver's license number or a photocopy of a
valid ID must be included. Kobach also commented that a very common method
of voter fraud is for someone to vote in two states or two different
counties. To combat this, Kansas is the host of an inter-state check of
voter rolls. There are approximately fourteen participating states.
As are many of the latest voter ID laws, the pending bill in Nebraska is
modeled on Georgia's and Indiana's laws. This proposal, as so many of the
others before it, has the left making the argument that the voter ID law
disproportionately affects low-income, minority, elderly, and student voters
. Since Nebraska is not a Section 5 state, it will not have the DOJ on its
back. State Senator Charlie Janssen, author of this bill, in answering his
critics, told American Thinker, "I am not disenfranchising voters. The only
people it might discourage from voting are those who will try to commit
voter fraud. In fact, the 30,000 registered voters that do not have a state
-issued ID will be sent a voter registration card, which will allow them to
not only vote, but will also remind them to vote. This will actually drive
people to the polls. I have launched a website, stopvotefraud.net, to have
a grassroots effort. If people sign the petition, a clear message will be
sent to the legislature in support of my bill. Anyone who is against a
voter ID law is for voter fraud."
In the 1950s and 1960s, qualified people were being denied their right to
vote; however, today, as J. Christian Adams notes, "voter ID laws are
necessary to make sure no one's vote is diluted because of voter fraud."
All interviewed agree and argue that citizens need to believe that people
are elected through a fair and legitimate process. Kobach considers the DOJ
argument ridiculous, since "this is a common-sense issue. It has become a
basic attribute to life in America to have a photo ID. You need one to get
on a plane, buy Sudafed, and cash a check. This is why it seems sensible to
such a large majority of Americans, as reflected in the 2010 Rasmussen poll
, which showed that 82% of Americans support photo ID laws. Remember, voter
participation increased in Georgia and Indiana possibly because of voter
confidence in the process." Since voter ID laws are a deterrent to voter
fraud and increase the integrity of elections, it seems logical to enact
them, which is probably why Holder and the DOJ are so against them. |
|
