Indentification Audit

For the past decade, Democrats and their elected representatives have adamantly opposed any suggestion that formal identification be presented prior to an individual submitting a ballot. What seems like simple common sense—that is, verifying that the person voting is in fact the person who he or she claims to be—has been spun by Democrats and their trained media hamsters into a "racist" attempt to "suppress" the vote. How? Exactly.

Is it too much to ask that a person who is interested in voting be certain that he has positive identification? Apparently, it is.

Listening to the absurd justifications against positive identification posited by Democrats, we learn that 11 or 13 or 21 or 25 percent of the electorate is too poor, lacks transportation, or is otherwise incapable (e.g., disabled) of getting an ID. Never mind that poor people use IDs all the time, never mind that mass transit is generally available in urban centers, never mind that special programs can be implemented for the house-bound. It's easier to promote a voting system that is inherently open to abuse, as long as that abuse skews in your favor.

John Fund reports:

Many liberals are adamant there is no threat of voter fraud that justifies efforts to improve the integrity of elections. “There is no real concrete evidence of voter fraud,” tweeted Donna Brazile, former acting chair of the Democratic National Committee, this week. “It’s a big ass lie.”

James O’Keefe, the guerilla filmmaker who brought down the ACORN voter-registration fraudsters in 2010 and forced the resignation of NPR executives, politely disagrees. Today, he is releasing some new undercover footage that raises disturbing questions about ballot integrity in Colorado, the site of fiercely contested races for the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House, and the governorship. When he raised the issue of filling out some of the unused ballots that are mailed to every household in the state this month, he was told by Meredith Hicks, the director of Work for Progress, a liberal group funded by Democratic Super PACS.: “That is not even like lying or something, if someone throws out a ballot, like if you want to fill it out you should do it.” She then brazenly offered O’Keefe, disguised as a middle-aged college instructor, a job with her group.

The video of O’Keefe’s encounters with other operatives is equally disturbing. He has a conversation with Greenpeace employee Christina Topping, and suggests he might have access to unused ballots from people who have recently moved out of college fraternity houses. “I mean it is putting the votes to good use,” she responds. “So really, truly, like yeah, that is awesome.”

"Awesome," if you think that our country should become a banana republic where no one trusts election results and representatives are "elected" not by an honest majority, but by the people who are the most dishonest.

Of course, the Dems claim that everyone is honest and that any abuse is miniscule and therefore unworthy of concern. Hence, voter ID laws aren't unnecessary.

Okay, why don't we test that premise. Let's select 5,000 precincts throughout the United States, distributed based on population density. Just as the IRS does a income tax audit on randomly selected individuals, let's do a full "identification audit" on every person who casts a vote in those randomly selected precincts (including absentee ballots cast for that precinct). If an exiting voter presents a valid picture ID, the audit is over. If a formal non-picture ID is presented, a second form of identification is required (credit card, EBT card, utility bill, cell phone bill) before the audit ends. If no second source ID is presented or no ID is available, the person must answer questions about his or her residence, social security number, and other identifying characteristics. These would then be vetted after the fact. No one who participated in the audit would be liable for criminal prosecution, but the data collected would be carefully analyzed to determine the extent of any fraud, the true number of voters without identification and other useful tidbits.

Intrusive and expensive? Sure. But so are IRS audits. The intent of both audits is to collect data and keep people honest. More importantly, the intent is to understand the scope of any problem that does exist.

The Dems should welcome this approach. After all, it will prove once and for all that everyone is honest and there is no voter fraud. Or will it?

UPDATE (10/23/2014)
-------------------------
In the quote above, Donna Brazile noted that election fraud claims are "a big ass lie."

Hmmm. Consider the following excerpt from a Heritage Foundation Report (read the whole thing):

The "Truth About Voter Fraud," according to activ­ist groups like the Brennan Center, is that "many of the claims of voter fraud amount to a great deal of smoke without much fire…. The allegations simply do not pan out."[1]

Chicago, however, is known for its fires, and there was a roaring one there in 1982 that resulted in one of the largest voter fraud prosecutions ever conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice. The telltale smoke arose out of one of the closest governor's races in Illi­nois history; and as for the fire, the U.S. Attorney in Chicago at the time, Daniel Webb, estimated that at least 100,000 fraudulent votes (10 percent of all votes in the city) had been cast.[2] Sixty-five individuals were indicted for federal election crimes, and all but two (one found incompetent to stand trial and another who died) were convicted. [3]

This case of voter fraud is worth studying today be­cause it illustrates the techniques that political machines and organized political groups use to steal elections. Even in the present day, this threat is not hypothetical: Tactics similar to those documented in the Chicago case have come to light in recent elections in Philadel­phia and in the states of Wisconsin and Tennessee. The Daley machine may be legendary in modern times for its election fraud prowess, but these recent cases show that the incentives and opportunities for fraud have not lessened. Guarding against these tac­tics can make the difference between a fair election and a stolen election, particularly where the mar­gins of victory are narrow and just a few fraudulent votes can change the outcome.

Of course, Dems would argue that 1982 is ancient history, but remember a paraphrase of the oft-used Santyana quote: "Those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I suspect that the history of voter fraud has been and continues to be repeated -- repeatedly.

Consider this. Over the past 15 years, Dan McLaughlin notes:

For whatever reason, when statewide races are decided by less than 1 point, Democrats win almost three-quarters of the time. When the margin opens to 1-2 points, that advantage dissipates, and the Democrats win only half the races

You don't need much voter fraud to effect the outcome of close races. But the Dems have no reason to be concerned. After all, they win close races 75 percent of the time, instead of the 50 percent you'd expect. Ya have to wonder why.