in Uncategorized

The Myth of Voter Suppression

People ask me for updates on the race. Here it is in a nutshell: Romney’s winning. He’s winning big.

He’s winning the early voting by seven points, even though that was where Obama was supposed to have a huge advantage. He’s up in Ohio. He’s raising boatloads of cash. National polls have had him above fifty percent for over two weeks. And Gallup reports that Republicans will have a 2% advantage at the polls this time as opposed to the 12% advantage the Dems had four years ago – a colossal 14-point swing that will make all the heavily oversampled pro-Democrat polls look pretty foolish. Against the mountain of evidence that Romney’s headed for a landslide victory, you have – wunderkind Nate Silver of the New York Times, who seems increasingly dippy with each passing day.

So now that Romney’s winning, the fight is on to figure out a way to delegitimize his victory. How to do that, you ask? The myth of voter suppression. It’s the Republican-backed voter ID laws that are keeping all good Democrats at home.

Just listen to this party hack:

“Some critics of voter IDs think the government cannot do this job, but Mexico and most poor countries in the world have been able to register and give IDs to almost all their citizens. Surely the United States can do it, too. Free photo IDs would also empower minorities, who are often charged exorbitant fees for cashing checks because they lack proper identification.”

Oh, whoops! That was former President Jimmy Carter, one of the over 70% of voters who support voter ID legislation. My bad. Guess he’s trying to steal thing for Romney, too. Just ask Garry Trudeau, whose Doonesbury character “Marvelous” Mark interviewed a giant bird named Jimmy – as in Jim Crow – last Sunday. Jimmy Crow claims these laws discourage voting among people who are “old! Colored! Kids! Gimps!”

Read for yourself:

And then there’s our old pal Michael Moore, whose latest slice of bile warning of Republican perfidy features very foul language, spoken unexpectedly by very, very old people. Be warned. Heavy vulgarity ahead.

Does anyone think this little piece of offal actually helps the Obama campaign? If so, please explain. It’s lost on me. It strikes me as a colossal embarrassment and a sure sign of desperation from the Left. But what it does demonstrate is that the new narrative is that Mitt will have stolen this election by means of voter suppression.

All this makes for a tantalizing conspiracy theory, but it bears no resemblance to the actual facts.

Consider Georgia, a state with a heavy minority population that enacted voter ID laws in 2005. Since then, the Atlanta-Journal Constitution has reported the following: “Turnout among black and Hispanic voters increased from 2006 to 2010, dramatically outpacing population growth for those groups over the same period.”

The same principle holds in Indiana, which has strict ID requirements and has seen the number of black voters double between 2004 and 2008.

Study after study has demonstrated that such laws do not suppress turnout among the populations that Doonesbury thinks it does. So if Republicans are really trying to use these laws to keep minorities from voting, they aren’t doing a very good job of it.

Critics also maintain that such laws are unnecessary, since voter fraud is rarely prosecuted. But those complaints ring hollow during this election cycle, when a congressman’s son was caught on film orchestrating the impersonation of 100 voters in order to fraudulently alter election results.

Voter fraud is difficult to catch because, in many ways, it’s the perfect crime. Once a ballot is cast, it’s completely untraceable, and it becomes impossible to separate the real votes from the fakes. Voter ID laws are a common sense preventive measure to ensure the integrity of our elections, and they don’t keep anyone from voting.

On this issue, Jimmy Carter is absolutely right. (Goodness gracious, did I really admit that?)

Your Guy Won Again. (And Romney Will Win the Election.)
Pre-Election Spine Update

Leave a Reply


  1. I think it’s kind of awesome that Rep. Moran (D-Va) can just separate himself from the fraudulent scheme by accepting his son’s resignation and cooly calling his actions an “error in judgement”.

    • You mean the employer was rightly exercising his 1st Amendment rights, just as the unions routinely do?

      Oh no. The horror….

      • No, this is a 1st Amendment Rights’ issue at all. It is more like yelling out fire a crowded theater to cause panic in the crowd. When was the last time a Presidential Election actually caused major lay-offs? Never! So this is a scare tactic.

        • That of course is a deeply stupid argument, since it can be used to characterize any expression that runs counter to leftist sociopathology as a scare tactic.

          Because by default you’re also saying that unions warning against the election of Romney is a scare tactic as well. But what’s wrong with scare tactics anyway?

          A scare tactic? Okay, but so what. People should be scared of Obama’s policies, it’s good for them to be scared of a 2nd Obama term. Fear prevents a person from jumping off a cliff, or walking into a burning house.

          The employer was well within his rights to inform his employees of the consequences of potential future events, and ought to be commended for doing so. It’s along the same lines as warning the population of a flood or coming storm, or an attack on an embassy. If such and such happens, here are the potential consequences.

          Presidential elections sometimes do cause lay offs, look for instance how FDR’s policies helped extend the Great Depression for roughly 7 years. Though Obama’s selection would obviously be more severe, since his unwise policy making is openly hostile to the business community and American influence.

          It simply wouldn’t pay for anyone to stay in business under a 2nd Obama term, because it’s fairly obvious that no money would be made, which of course is the entire purpose of being in business in the first place.

          So yes it is absolutely a 1st Amendment issue, and it’s important to understand that even speech that leftists don’t like is protected by that right, and ought to be.

          • JJ… your response is not even wrong– since being wrong would mean that you actually have some command of the facts that you wish to dispute. In your case, however, your command of the facts is so limited that it borders on the absurd what you propose as a counter argument.

            No, one is making money in business today? That is one of your counter-arguments : look at the Dow Jones Industrial Average today and what it was 8 Years ago. You see that is back up to over 13,200 as of right now. This way up from the 8800 or so that it was at during 2008. So you tell me bring that up 4,200 points is a bad sign for the economy?

            More people are hiring this month alone about 150,000 jobs in the US.

            So, how are Obama’s policies openly hostile to business?

            And if you think FDR’s policies extended the Great Depression– Who enacted the Smoot-Harly Act of 1930 and Who enacted the Reciprocal Tariff Act? Who suspended the gold standard from the Money System to stem deflationary problem seen at the early part of the pre-Great Depression era which only would have accelerated with the foreclosures of the banks in the late 1920’s and early 1930’s. It also stabilized the Gold Market and improved production between 1937-1941 by almost 50% according to some economic historians.

            Finally, FDR’s policies put people to work, stabilized the banking industry, forced securities to actually have responsible data for their claims, and produced a noticeable improvement in overall morale in the Country.

            So, this is not a first amendment issue at all. The policies of Obama have not harmed the economy in any way. They have not been as targeted or as well placed as they could be but they certainly haven’t caused major corporations to lay off millions because them. What has caused layoffs is simply the ability for corporations to create more wealth for themselves at the expense of the general society.

      • Sequestration– is a) a wide open topic in the sense that it is not defined what exactly will be cut and b) it is not clear exactly that any of the cuts in the process will occur. Finally c) the cuts wouldn’t occur until after 2013 most likely. So why would you tell someone that they will be laid off in December of 2013 in November of 2012? That is absurd.

        • I don’t know. Maybe so you can spend that time looking for another job. That thought ever cross your mind Einstein?

          • There is no reason to believe that jobs will be lost at this time.