9th Circuit: Photo ID Okay--Kirsten Powers Agrees

Sorry vote fraudsters: Even the super liberal U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that the requirement to show a government-issued photo ID to vote is legal.

Earlier this week, the full (i.e., "en banc") court ruled in favor of 2004 Arizona ballot initiative--Proposition 200--requiring photo ID to cast a ballot. in Gonzalez v. Arizona, the appellate panel concluded that the mandate to show a driver's license or the equivalent was not discriminatory, as every common-sense person irrespective of ethnicity already knows.

As the Arizona Daily Star explains:

...the judges rejected arguments that mandating would-be voters show a driver's license or other identification unfairly discriminates against Latino voters. Judge Sandra Ikuta, writing for the majority, said while challengers made that claim, they failed to present any credible evidence.

The court disallowed one provision of the Arizona law that requires proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote using the federal form because it was inconsistent with the federal "Motor Voter Law," one of the worst pieces of legislation signed into law by then-president Bill Clinton. This issue will eventually find its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Kirsten Powers, one of the few liberal TV commentators who doesn't rely on propaganda and disinformation, says Democrats and liberals are trapped in the past with their obsessive opposition to photo ID laws:

Photo ID for Voting: What's Wrong with this "Picture"?

The left seem seems to be addicted to vote fraud in the same way that crackheads are drawn to the white powder.

How else to explain the all-too-predictable Justice Department blocking Texas' voter ID law for mythical violations of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, while a Wisconsin judge issued a ruling setting aside a similar Wisconsin law. Now the corrupt United Nations, an organization dominated by human-rights-violating dictatorships, wants to engage in a phoney-baloney investigation of U.S. photo ID laws.

Liberals worried about make-believe voter disenfranchisement cling to the fantasy that voter fraud is not a problem. Here is another video from James O'Keefe of Project Veritas that demonstrates otherwise.

Did Tim Tebow and Tom Brady Vote for Rick Santorum in Minnesota?

GOP presidential candidate Rick Santorum won last night's Minnesota caucus. A caucus requires people to show up in person in contrast to an actual primary or general election.

Coincidentally, James O'Keefe's lastest video on vote fraud shows how Tim Tebow and Tom Brady and anyone else can register to vote absentee in Minnesota with no verification.

Minnesota is, of course, the state that narrowly "elected" Stuart Smalley to the U.S. Senate after a shady recount.


 

Non-Citizens Voting in Lee County Florida

Right-of-center politicians have to overperform in elections because Democrats tend to feast on vote fraud, which was made easier by the so-called Motor-Voter law enacted during the Clinton administration (which does not require proof of citizenship).

Cape Coral, Fla., in the Ft. Myers area, is a beautiful place to live or visit. But like communities all across the U.S., the integrity of the ballot is at risk because of lax laws and poor oversight as revealed by this local TV investigation about non-citizen voting. In the meantime, head-in-the-sand (or worse) liberals insist vote fraud isn't a problem and fight tooth and nail against reasonable photo ID requirements.

New Hampshire Primary Vote Fraud

New Hampshire's motto is "live free or die." It could also be "vote even you're dead."

In this video made on primary day, muckraker James O'Keefe reveals how easy it is to commit vote fraud in that state--and in other states that require no photo ID to vote or that fail to scrub the voter rolls of ineligible voters.

Only the Alice in Wonderland Democrats (including New Hampshire's governor who vetoed a voter ID bill) oppose reasonable efforts to prevent shenanigans at the polls.

Corrupt or incompetent state officials, aided and abetted by the U.S. Justice Department, are turning a blind eye to vote fraud--although in this case the New Hampshire attorney general claims he will conduct an investigation.



Requiring voters to show a photo ID before voting is one issue; fraud-prevention reforms also need to be made in the distribution of absentee ballots.
 

Justice Department: Vote Early, Vote Late, Vote Often

In daily life, we in general have to assume good faith in our transactions with others, otherwise as a practical matter we'll be consumed with doubt and unable to get things done.

But can anyone attribute good faith to th U.S. Justice (so-called) Department?

The latest outrage is that DOJ rejected South Carolina's voter ID law on the basis of alleged "racial disparities" according to Assistant AG Thomas Perez. Relying on the provisions of the Voting Rights Act, the agency will likely block similar measures recently enacted in other states.

This phony-baloney decision really amounts to the DOJ under Eric Holder simply wanting to make vote rigging and vote fraud easier just in time for the 2012 presidential election. Again, as we have mentioned previously, if you need to show a picture ID for mundane activities such as getting on a plane, buying booze or cigarettes, picking up a package at UPS or the Post Office, or in some cases completing a credit card transaction, why in the world should any reasonable person oppose showing a driver's license or other valid photo identification at the polls? And isn't it an insult to any individual or group to assume that they can't get it together to obtain a photo ID?

Presenting a picture ID at the polls was "endorsed by the Commission on Federal Election Reform headed by President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker in 2005 to protect the integrity of the ballot," the WSJ adds.

The DOJ action based on make-believe discrimination defies common sense. But it comes from the same fantasy world federal government that fails to enforce immigration law but sues states that do.

Earlier this week (before the South Carolina decision was announced, although the handwriting was on the wall), The Wall Street Journal decried Holder's use of the race card to oppose voter ID in a recent speech:

Mr. Holder says the Civil Rights Division led by Thomas Perez will review the policies and impartially "apply the law." If that's true, Mr. Perez's job should be easy: In 2005, Justice approved a nearly identical law in Georgia. In 2008's Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the Supreme Court likewise ruled 6-3 that an Indiana law requiring photo ID at the ballot box was constitutional....

That isn't good enough for Mr. Holder, who says his department's priority is to "expand the franchise." But expand it for whom, exactly? The vast majority of voters already have the necessary photo ID, which they need to get through airport security or register for a grocery-store savings card.

Plaintiffs put up by liberal lawsuit shops routinely claim that ID laws endanger the rights of hundreds of thousands, but lawsuits in Indiana and Georgia were dismissed because they couldn't produce a single eligible voter who'd been turned away due to the ID requirement. Turnout has risen in states that have passed the voter ID laws, with no adverse impact on minorities.

Texas is apparently next on the chopping block. DOJ whistleblower J. Christian Adams recommends that "The way to save Texas voter ID is to withdraw the objection, immediately, and file in federal court on Tuesday.  The way to save South Carolina voter ID is to file in court immediately.  Stop wasting time with the corrupt leftist bureaucrats at the Justice Department."

Hopefully South Carolina, Texas, and other similar situated states will immediately use all the legal means at their disposal to overturn the DOJ bureaucracy.

Artur Davis: Democrats Cooking the Ballot Box

Organizations similar to ACORN allied with the Democrats are likely gearing up to commit vote fraud in the 2012 election. Former Congressman Artur Davis says that the real problem in voter fraud, at least in his home state of Alabama, is in the absentee ballot process, and that no "progressive" should oppose voter ID laws.

Again, if you need to show an ID for mundane activities such as getting on a plane, buying booze or cigarettes, picking up a package at UPS or the Post Office, or in some cases completing a credit card transaction, why in the world should any reasonable person oppose showing photo identification at the polls?

Finally: A Democrat Who Supports Voter ID

What's more bogus in contemporary politics--made-up stories about Tea Party transgressions or the delusional reasons that the Democrats and the ACLU types use to justify their opposition to reasonable requirements for showing a photo ID before voting?

Former Congressman Artur Davis, a Democrat who unsuccessfully ran for Alabama governor, no longer buys into the left-wing mythology (which is just a smokescreen for voter fraud) about the latter according to this opinion piece in a Montgomery newspaper:

I've changed my mind on voter ID laws -- I think Alabama did the right thing in passing one -- and I wish I had gotten it right when I was in political office.

When I was a congressman, I took the path of least resistance on this subject for an African American politician. Without any evidence to back it up, I lapsed into the rhetoric of various partisans and activists who contend that requiring photo identification to vote is a suppression tactic aimed at thwarting black voter participation.

The truth is that the most aggressive contemporary voter suppression in the African American community, at least in Alabama, is the wholesale manufacture of ballots, at the polls and absentee, in parts of the Black Belt.

Voting the names of the dead, and the nonexistent, and the too-mentally-impaired to function, cancels out the votes of citizens who are exercising their rights -- that's suppression by any light. If you doubt it exists, I don't; I've heard the peddlers of these ballots brag about it, I've been asked to provide the funds for it, and I am confident it has changed at least a few close local election results.

To his further credit, Davis apparently was the only black Democrat to vote against Obamacare.