Safeguards must be installed to prevent voter fraud
Of course, voters had solid reasons for doubts for some time before the last two elections. In the state of Maryland, for example, the voter rolls do not seem to be routinely purged and it is illegal to ask a voter for proof of identity. Any attempt to add reliability to the system is resisted in Annapolis by the (lamentable and apparently permanent) Democratic majority. Resistance to reliable electoral reforms is widespread. However, rather than tackle this one state at a time, the new Republican majority in the House of Representatives offers a chance to reform federal elections nationwide. Article I, Section 4, cl. 1 of the Constitution reads as follows:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.
First, as to voter identification, we can choose a politically correct option, i.e., the election laws of Canada. After all, if we could copy their health care law, surely we can copy their election law. Here is what Canada requires in the way of voter identification, as published on the website of Elections Canada, an independent agency established by Parliament with responsibility for Canadian elections.
Option 1: Show one piece of identification with your photo, name and address. It must be issued by a government agency.
Option 2: Show two pieces of authorized identification. Both pieces must have your name and one must also have your address.
Option 3: Swear an oath and have an elector who knows you vouch for you. This person must have authorized identification and be from the same polling division as you. This person can only vouch for one person.
I would modify the Canadian requirements slightly to require that both the elector swearing the oath and the elector who vouches for that person do so under penalty of perjury.
The identification requirement must be met before the voter can receive a ballot. I would add the requirement that the voter, prior to being allowed to cast a ballot, dip a finger in a pot of indelible ink to prevent voting more than once.
Finally, I would address ballot security. Regardless of assurances, I do not find a high degree of confidence in purely electronic voting machines. Certainly, I am not confident that these machines can be rendered secure from undetectable tampering. In my electoral district, these machines were adopted following the confusion of the presidential election recount in Florida in 2000. But before the advent of these machines, we used paper ballots on which the voter used a pencil to complete an arrow next the candidate's name. This ballot was scanned optically, but the paper ballot was retained as a backup. This is a method that is unlikely to create confusion in the mind of the voter, yet is highly reliable. I would suggest Congress require this ballot for federal elections.
I remain mystified as to why the then Republican-controlled Senate did not pass the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006 during its "lame duck" session in 2006. The bill had already been passed by the House and only required approval in the Senate. Here's what I wrote at the time:
Requiring Photo I.D. for Voters Should Be Senate's Highest Priority Before It Ajourns
Attention has begun to turn to the possible priorities of the current Congress before it adjourns for the year. Lest we forget, at this moment both the House and Senate still have Republican majorities. That will change 100% when Congress returns in January.
An Associated Press story Thursday listed several possible priorities for Congress, but ignored the urgent need for passage of a bill requiring that voters show photo identification before they cast ballots in federal elections.
One of the absolute highest priorities for the Senate before it adjourns must be passage of the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006, which was already passed by the House.
The status of the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006 is here. The full text of the Act is here.
First, consider the fact that in many states, it is illegal for election officials to ask a voter to provide photo identification.
Second, consider the fact that America has a huge and ever-increasing population of illegal immigrants. States like California, Arizona, and Colorado, to name a few, are straining under the weight of their illegal immigrant populations. The problem is massive, nationwide. Unlike naturalized citizens who have jumped all the hurdles required for citizenship, these illegal immigrants or non-citizen residents do not necessarily share an understanding and appreciation of our system of government; they did not study civics and American history in high school (if they reached high school at all). Not all are literate, even in their native languages. Many do not speak or write English fluently, or at all.
Third, consider this fact: In many states and cities with high immigrant populations such as California, Colorado and Arizona, up to half the ballots were cast as absentee ballots this year.
Why do you suppose there is such a nationwide surge in demand for absentee ballots? Is it just coincidence that the surge in the number of absentee ballots corresponds with a surge in the number of illegal and non-citizen immigrants?
As John Fund at the Wall Street Journal has noted, absentee ballots make voting by non-citizens, voter coercion, vote buying, and other forms of vote fraud much more likely.
Do you suppose that non-citizen immigrants are more likely, or less likely, to cast improper ballots in states that make absentee ballots readily available? Under current law, voters can register to vote anonymously. Immigrant rights groups are then free to collect absentee ballots from immigrants (who remain anonymous) and free to make sure they are marked in the way the organizers dictate. The voter never appears in person in front of any election worker.
The National Commission on Federal Election Reform concluded that absentee ballots do not satisfy five essential criteria for sound and honest elections, including assuring the privacy of the secret ballot and protecting against coerced voting, verifying that only duly registered voters cast ballots, and safeguarding ballots against loss or alteration.
The problem goes beyond illegal aliens, of course. In some states, fictitious "voters" have been created, and have "voted" in absentia. Without a requirement for photo I.D., the only thing that stands between these pretend voters and official election results is the amount of time and energy that a handful of busy election workers have to try to ferret out the fraud. Are you willing to bet your democracy that overburdened civil servants will somehow catch all the fraud? I'm sure that they cannot. Look at what happened when the leftist group ACORN allegedly submitted more than 15,000 voter registration forms with fictitious names, phony signatures and bogus addresses. ACORN reports that it helped over 540,000 "low income and minority citizens in several states" register to vote in 2006. Does anyone even remotely believe it possible that the 15,000 allegedly bogus registrations already identified are the only questionable registrations among the 540,000 registrations from ACORN in various states?
Before the election, it was reported that passing a bill to ensure that photo identification is required for voting was one of Bill Frist's priorities for when Congress returns after the election.
In light of the fact that Democrats will be taking over Congress in January, and vigorously oppose the simple reform of requiring photo identification from voters, it is NOW OR NEVER for this vital reform.
The Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006, requiring voters in federal elections to provide photo identification, passed in the House of Representatives and was sent to the Senate on September 21, 2006. Democrats should be embarrassed that 98% of their representatives voted to oppose this basic, common-sense reform that is critical to the integrity of our elections and our democracy.
The bill provides for anyone who cannot afford the photo identification to be provided it free of charge. States that provide poor citizens with free identification for voting purposes are reimbursed for the cost of providing such I.D. As a further protection, voters who forget to bring photo I.D. with them to the polls may cast provisional ballots that are counted if they provide photo identification within 48 hours.
Absentee ballots later determined to be fraudulent or improper have already exceeded the margin of victory in some U.S. elections. Fraudulent absentee ballots cast by non-citizens will decide future elections unless a stop is put to the current open invitation to fraud.
It is not an understatement to say that our democracy is close to being lost. Absentee ballots and prohibitions on requiring voter identification have their purposes, but they have become an unacceptably huge risk to the integrity of our elections.
We need to limit absentee ballots to those who have a genuine need for them, and we need to require photo identification from every voter in every election.
As I've pointed out before: Voter fraud is one of those "quiet" crimes. It doesn't scream; it whispers. You have to watch and listen for it, or it will quickly destroy our democracy. You won't know it has hit you until it's too late.
The importance of closing off opportunities for election fraud cannot be overstated. This should be a top priority this year for Congress and for state legislatures across the country.
