The Help America Vote Act of 2002 requires states to purge their voter rolls, but not to remove names until two national election cycles have passed. Moreover, the states are not required to compare their lists against those of other states. This leaves a lot of room for fraud.
In the next two years, expect the Left to sponsor legislation to introduce early voting in the 18 states that don’t have it. They also will try to have more photo ID laws blocked by the U.S. Justice Department and weaken laws that require even minimal IDs for mail-in ballots.
At the same time, conservatives will make the case for requiring photo IDs for voting and for mail-in absentee ballots, expanding citizenship requirements, and ending or at least reducing early voting.
One of the main arguments for early voting is that it’s supposed to increase turnout. It doesn’t. With more states allowing it, turnout was significantly down, with about 5 million fewer people voting in 2012 than in 2008. In the 10 battleground states – Colorado, Florida, Iowa, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin, turnout percentage decreased in all but one state, Iowa, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center.
Early voting undermines the secret ballot, reduces the importance of the national election day, costs taxpayers far more than a single voting day, forces campaigns to spend more over a longer period of time, and, finally, prevents voters from exercising a change of heart if more information surfaces before Election Day (Benghazi, anyone?). “We don’t let jurors decide in a trial before all the evidence is heard,” says conservative activist attorney Andy Schlafly. “Elections are just as important.”
Help may be on the horizon. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case in which Arizona is challenging the Ninth Circuit’s ruling overturning that state’s proof of U.S. citizenship requirement for voting. Only three states – Arizona, Georgia and Kansas – have enacted proof of citizenship laws, with the Kansas law taking effect in 2013, and Arizona’s in limbo until the Court rules.
In another important voting case, on Nov. 9, the Court agreed to revisit Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by hearing Shelby County, Ala. vs. Holder, Department of Justice, et al. The law requires the U.S. Justice Department or a three-judge federal panel in the District of Columbia to approve any changes in election laws or districting in nine Southern states and some local jurisdictions around the nation. Congress enacted the law to prevent racially-motivated voting violations.
In 1966, in South Carolina v. Katzenbach, the Court upheld the Act, citing the clear history of racial discrimination. But the Court also indicated that if conditions change, the constitutionality of the Act might be revisited.
That would be a good thing. Citing the Voting Rights Act, the U.S. Justice Department under Eric H. Holder, Jr. blocked perfectly good photo ID voter laws in South Carolina and Texas despite a 2008 Supreme Court decision upholding a similar law in Indiana.
There’s no evidence that voter ID laws “suppress the minority vote.” There is evidence, however, that in some places where such laws have been neutralized (Pennsylvania), vote fraud occurred.
Did vote fraud make the crucial difference in the 2012 election? Maybe, maybe not. It’s difficult to account accurately for millions of ballots.
And that’s just the way the Left likes it.