Putting the Rs Back in Voter Fraud
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:35 pm
We couldn’t help notice that among the interim charges released by Speaker Tom Craddick last week was a directive that House members “study voter fraud in Texas.”
When the Republican leadership starts talking about solving “voter fraud,” an attempt to disenfranchise Democratic-leaning voters can’t be far behind.
The GOP has tried for years in Texas and around the country to pass laws requiring voters to show government-issued photo identification at the polls. Republicans have argued that more stringent voter ID laws are needed to combat “voter fraud.” The logic goes like this: you need it to drive, to get money out of the bank, and to prove to the police that you are who you say you are, so shouldn’t you need it to vote?
The fact is, independent research has turned up scant evidence of wide-spread voter fraud in Texas.
The studious folks over at the Lone Star Project found that a program run by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott targeting voter fraud only succeeded in questioning a total of 40 ballots and shaking down some senior citizens.
In only one instance, is it alleged that anyone other than a legal, qualified voter cast a ballot. In every other instance, the Attorney General is using a loophole in the Texas election law to prosecute seniors for the simple act of assisting other seniors in casting their mail-in ballot.
(The Project also pointed out that former Tom DeLay crony John Colyandro has started up a ‘think tank’ whose focus will be voter suppression.)
Requiring new hurdles for voters will have the effect of stopping some Texans, who can legally vote, from voting. Requiring a driver’s license would disproportionately suppress voting by the poor, the very young, the very old, and minorities.
A recent study of Indiana’s voter ID law — the most stringent in the nation — found that the rich white folks were most likely to have IDs.
It doesn’t take a campaign strategist to see why the GOP is so interested in this.
In the absence of direct evidence of voter fraud, Craddick reaches for that other great GOP boogie man — illegal immigration. “State and federal law both require all voters to be citizens,” Craddick’s release says. “But current state law requires no photo identification or proof of citizenship when registering to vote or when voting.”
The Republican leadership tried hard to pass voter ID bills the past three sessions. In 2007, the Texas Senate was the only thing standing in the way of the Voter ID bill. Two versions of the bill passed the Texas House, and Gov. Rick Perry made it clear that he was hungry to sign the legislation. But the Senate said no, thanks to the fact that Democrats were united in their opposition. An ailing Sen. Mario Gallegos (D-Houston) even moved his hospital bed into an adjoining room to the Senate chamber just so he could be there to vote against it.
The appearance of voter fraud among Craddick’s interim charges may indicate that the GOP will dust off another voter ID bill when the 81st Legislature convenes in 2009.
That could depend on how the Supreme Court rules. On January 9, the High Court will hear challenges to the constitutionality of voter ID bills in Indiana and Georgia.
December 4th, 2007 at 8:20 am
In 2004, about 40,000 ballots were recounted in the VO-HEFLIN race here in Texas and each voter’s credentials were examined in depth.
Only one non-citizen was found to have voted … , as it happens, for the GOP candidate. That is a .0025% rate of infiltration by foreigners.
He was a Norwegian under pressure at work to register and vote Republican. He was not prosecuted, however, because he had checked the box saying “I am not a citizen” only to be registered anyway by the Republican Tax Assessor-Collector.
In a voter registration and ballot qualification system already as suppressive and unreliable as ours is in Texas, the GOP “voter fraud” initiatives — especially any more as involve computer technologies that the Texas Legislature clearly do not fathom — could have unintended consequences and blow-back in both parties.
January 25th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
[…] again: voter ID. They’re meeting today at the behest of House Speaker Tom Craddick, who charged the committee with studying voter fraud in […]
January 26th, 2008 at 9:04 am
[…] Tom Craddick had charged the committee with sleuthing out the scope of Texas’ problems with voter fraud, and considering what, oh […]
March 14th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Anyone who can’t read, shouldn’t be allowed in “government!”
If “you all” can read. . . explain these. . . “The court has held that there is no such license known to Texas Law as a “driver’s license.” (Frank John Callas v. State, 167 Tex. Crim. 375; 320 S.W. 2d 360.) We have held that there is no such license as a driver’s license known to our law.” (Claude D. Campbell v. State, 160 Tex. Crim. 627; 274 S.W. 2d 401.) “An information charging the driving of a motor vehicle upon a public highway without a driver’s license charges no offense, as there is no such license as a driver’s license known to the law.” (Keith Brooks v. State, 158 Tex. Crim. 546; 258 S.W. 2d 317) …”There being no such license as a “driver’s” license known to the law, it follows that the information, in charging the driving of a motor vehicle upon a highway without such a license, charges no offense.” ( W. Lee Hassell v. The State, 149 Tex. Crim. 333; 194 S.W. 2d 400) Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
March 14th, 2008 at 10:49 am
If there is NO real LAW as requiring a “drivers license” in the state of Texas, according to the Appeals court, than, more than likely there shouldn’t be any laws reqiring us voters, an ID to vote!
If you all don’t know what “freedom” means in your own Texas Constitution, and to live, vote, move about without government control, ie legislation, than maybe you all can go back and LEARN the Declaration of Independence, until you can QUOTE most of it, and not just skim it like you read it!
And after you LEARNED that excellent writing, than LEARN, not just skim, Murdock v Pennsylvania to SEE the rest of the TRUTH, about state “govment!” Like the “no state can take a right, turn it into a privledge and charge a license and fee for it” [the right} SAVVY?