Getting “To the Point”: Voter ID Laws Protect the Integrity of the Election Process
Last Monday, on Public Radio International’s show “To the Point,” host Warren Olney questioned several guests during a segment titled “Republicans, Democrats, and Voter ID.” During the segment, several liberals unfairly classified Voter ID laws as partisan efforts to suppress the minority vote. However, Hans von Spakovsky, a Senior Fellow for the Heritage Foundation, clearly proved that the laws are designed to combat the serious reality of vote fraud. He emphasized that the voter ID laws are “common sense reforms intended to protect the integrity and security of the election process.”
Lawrence Norden, of the New York University Law School’s Brennan Center for Justice, told Mr. Olney that he believed the laws make it more difficult for minorities to vote. Jonathon Chait, of the New York magazine, described the laws to be Republican attempts to keep younger voters and Democrats away from the polls. However, as Mr. von Spakovsky articulated, these faulty claims are “just a fantasy” and “are completely wrong.” States that applied the voter ID requirements during past elections revealed no evidence of such suppression. In fact, as von Spakovsky explained, “look at the turnout in Georgia and Indiana (states with voter ID laws) in the 2008 and 2010 elections—the turnouts of democrat, Hispanic, and African American voters went up, not down.”
Hilary Shelton, who spoke on behalf of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), downplayed the existence of in-person vote fraud. Mr. Shelton claimed that only election officials participate in vote fraud. In response, von Spakovsky cited to evidence of thousands of fraudulent impersonated ballots that were cast in Brooklyn, New York in the mid 1980’s. He described how voters voted for people who were dead or even used fictitious names.
Even Ohio Secretary of State John Husted, who opposed ID requirements in Ohio, admitted on the show, “there is vote fraud, and we should not create a system that allows for voter fraud.” Sixteen states have already recognized the problem and have enacted legislation tightening access to the polls. Nine states specifically require photo identification before allowing individuals to vote.
Despite the lack of voter suppression evidence, the segment discussed the NAACP’s recent request of the United Nations’ Human Rights Council to observe the U.S. election process. When speaking before the council, Benjamin Jealous, President of the NAACP, called for the UN to put the U.S. in line with the standards recognized by the council. However, during Olney’s radio segment, Mr. von Spakovsky described the stunt to be ridiculous. He even mentioned how Hungary, one of the democratic countries on the council, requires ID to be shown during elections.
After hearing the turnout of African American voters increased in Georgia despite the state’s voter ID laws, Warren Olney asked Hilary Shelton how the NAACP could still make claims of voter suppression. Mr. Shelton responded by saying, “The resolve of the African Americans is to make sure we come out anyway, that is what you saw.” This answer displays just how baseless the “discrimination” claims really are. As Mr. Olney emphasized, “if you are able to come out and vote anyhow (…) what is the problem?” Clearly the laws are not aimed to prevent African Americans or other minorities from voting, just fraudulent voters and non-citizens.
Vote fraud is a reality, and according to a recent Rasmussen poll, 70 percent of likely voters believe voter ID requirements should be utilized in elections. Nevertheless, liberals such as Lawrence Norden refuse to listen. During the radio segment, Lawrence Norden absurdly said, “America is more likely to be struck by lightning than experience voter fraud.” In the upcoming Presidential election, vote fraud will undoubtedly strike. One can only hope that it does not compromise the outcome of elections. Thankfully, at least sixteen states have taken steps to get out of the storm. Hopefully more states will “get to the point” and enforce legislation to protect the election process.