First of all, there is no evidence that "voter fraud" is a partisan issue. Second, I'm concerned about "voter fraud" but not the trivial amount of it that is impersonation at the polls. If you want to stop democrats from allegedly stealing elections, tighten up absentee ballots. That will have 100 times the actual impact of photo ID. Finally, photo ID rules help GOPers win by making it harder for poor, urban, mostly minorities to vote. Let's be adults and admit that obvious point.
Sure, like maybe GOP officials
slow walking or disappearing 50,000 voter registration forms? Initiating a bogus "fraud" investigation in the last few weeks of the registration period against a group that's registering likely democrats, alleging the investigation was prompted by flood of complaints, then finding out that there was ONE complaint filed?
If any of the so-called election integrity proponents spend even a minute on this type of thing, I might take the concerns seriously. But I just don't see it.
As all articles in this genre of propaganda do, the authors conflate all election fraud into 'voter fraud.' The Tennessee incident was vote BUYING - nothing to do with Photo ID. The case in Mississippi - absentee ballots. The survey, which was a very small population, concludes that some fraud occurs but those "illegals" voting were registered, illegals or non-citizens are eligible for photo ID, and at least 75% of those non-citizens who reported voting also reported that they were asked for and provided photo ID and voted.
I'll quit with this question. Is it an improvement on election integrity if 1,000 eligible citizens are unable to cast a vote because they lack ID, to stop ________________ (pick a number between 1 and infinity) of ineligible persons from casting a vote.
In other words, is a rule change beneficial to the integrity of elections if the rules prevent ONE person from casting an INeligible ballot, but prevent 1,000 eligible and registered citizens from casting their vote? If not ONE, then how many? 100? 500? What's an acceptable cost/benefit ratio?
The question was motivated by
this article. Lowry points to a GAO study that indicates 'only' 1,000 votes in one election in Kansas and Tennessee were not counted because of problems with photo ID. Well, that's about 800-900 more registered voters prevented from voting than all the documented cases of impersonation fraud in the U.S. in all elections over 50 states in a decade. A good trade or not?