Voter ID bill (Obenshain) voted down by state senate Democrats

A simple Voter Identification Bill (SB 134) proposed by Sen. Mark Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg) was voted down in committee by the Democrats.

From the Senator's office:

Today, Senator Mark Obenshain (R-Harrisonburg) questioned the partisan effort of the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections to act to ensure the continued integrity of the electoral process in Virginia. “Voter identification requirements are a commonsense way to ensure that elections are free and fair,” said Obenshain, whose Senate Bill 134 was passed by indefinitely in committee on a 6-5 party line vote. “Fraudulent or erroneously counted ballots reduce the impact of legitimately-cast votes and are unfair to everyone involved.”

“Opponents of this measure like to counter voter identification requirements by pointing out how few people are prosecuted for voter fraud, but this misses the point,” said Obenshain. “Firstly, because we currently allow people to vote without showing any form of identification, we have no way to even detect voter fraud. Secondly, how many fraudulently cast ballots must there be for us to take simple steps to ensure the integrity of our elections?”

“Some like to insist that there isn't a problem,” said Obenshain, “but that's naïve. A John Hopkins University Study identified 1,500 deceased Marylanders who had ‘voted' in recent elections, and one county in New Mexico found seventy-five registrants at a single address. Right here in Virginia, campaign headquarters, vacant lots, and non-existent addresses have all been listed on many registration forms.”

Obenshain's voter identification bill would require voters to show some form of identification at the polls, and expands the list of identifying documents to include utility bills, bank statements, paychecks, and government checks. Currently, individuals who fail to bring identification may vote by signing a statement in lieu of showing identification.

“Right now, even if the registrar somehow discovered that a voter wasn't who he claimed on Election Day, there's nothing they could do; there would be no way to find and remove a ballot even if it was later determined to be fraudulently cast,” said Obenshain. “Had my bill passed, those who arrived at their polling place without any form of identification could cast a provisional ballot, which would be counted if they were able to demonstrate their identification before the certification of election results.”

The Supreme Court has upheld similar laws in other states, and by adding alternative forms of identification, Obenshain's bill ensures that no eligible voter is disenfranchised by the inability to produce the forms of identification required under current law. In 2005, the bipartisan Carter-Baker Panel, headed by former president Jimmy Carter and former secretary of State James Baker, recommended identification requirements stricter than the ones contained in this legislation.

“This is not about making it harder to vote or keeping anyone from voting,” Obenshain added. “It's about making sure that every legitimate vote counts, and that those votes are not diluted by voter fraud.”

“I was disappointed by the partisan nature of the opposition to this initiative, but not surprised,” said Obenshain. “Whether they wish to admit it or not, though, voter fraud is an issue, and simple, commonsense safeguards like these will go a long way to ensure that our elections remain above reproach.”

Senator Obenshain represents the twenty-sixth district in the Virginia Senate. The district includes the city of Harrisonburg and the counties of Warren, Shenandoah, Page, Rappahannock and Rockingham (part).

ON THE WEB:
- Senator Mark Obenshain's website (and constituent survey):
- Mark Obenshain's Facebook profile
- Senate Bill 134

Republicans fight vote fraud in MN's Coleman race

Erick Erickson at RedState is keeping an eye on the Norm Coleman-Al Franken vote count in Minnesota ... and he sees some oddities. He writes:

I spent six years as an elections lawyer. I handled a lot of very wacked election canvasses and recounts. One thing they all had in common: when new votes were found, they generally went both ways -- a few for one candidate and a few for the other candidate. It didn't quite follow the polling, but then close races only happen at the 50-50 margin.

Here's something that never happened: the votes did not all go 100% for one candidate except in the two instances where there was only one misplaced ballot discovered.

In Minnesota, though, the votes are all going for Al Franken — pretty much all 600 of them. That defies statistical probability.

"That defies statistical probability" ... is anyone listening? Erick goes on to explain further irregularities as the Franken campaign looks for "missed" votes down-ticket. Hopefully, Republican lawyers will be able to prevent Al Franken from stealing this election from Republican Senator Norm Coleman.

VA state police investigate dual voter registrations?

Southside Conservative at The Contemporary Conservative has a breaking news story that the Virginia state police have been called in by the State Board of Elections to investigate possible student registration voter fraud.

Check this news story from the PilotOnline.com.

WSJ: "Lawyers who supervise voting rights are Obama donors"

The Wall Street Journal has serious questions about the validity of those who are supposed to oversee fairness in voting to prevent voter fraud. In Monday's editorial they seemed to think the fox was guarding the hen house when it came to guarding against voter fraud.

The WSJ wrote:

If voter fraud would ever be ripe for investigation, this would seem to be the year with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) having been caught filing thousands of bogus voter registrations in at least 14 states. Acorn's history of deceit and the national sweep of today's scandal demand a federal probe. Safeguarding the integrity of the vote is every bit as important as protecting access to the polls, yet Democrats want Justice to pay attention only to the latter.

Is voter fraud being ignored this year for political reasons? The WJS continued:

It doesn't help Justice's credibility that attorneys charged with supervising voting issues are avowed Barack Obama supporters. According to Federal Election Commission data, James Walsh, an attorney in the Civil Rights Division, has donated at least $300 to Mr. Obama. His boss, Mark Kappelhoff, has given $2,250 -- nearly the maximum. John Russ, also in Civil Rights, gave at least $600 to Mr. Obama.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to make these attorneys available to us, though she didn't deny that the contributions were made. She noted that the Hatch Act does not forbid federal employees from donating to candidates, and that Justice's internal "standards for recusal" on prosecutions depend on any "given situation." Apparently so.

Ending with examples of past voter fraud, the WSJ concluded:

Vote fraud is real and can affect elections. In 2001, the Palm Beach Post reported that more than 5,600 people who voted in Florida in the 2000 Presidential election had names and data that perfectly matched a statewide list of suspected felons who were barred from voting. Florida was decided by about 500 votes.

In 2003, the Indiana Supreme Court overturned the result of a mayor's race because of absentee ballot fraud -- a case that led to a stricter Indiana ID law recently upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. A 2005 Tennessee state Senate race was voided after evidence of voting by felons, nonresidents and the deceased. A Washington State Superior Court judge found that the state's 2004 gubernatorial race, which Democrat Christine Gregoire won by 133 votes, had included at least 1,678 illegal votes.

Voter access does need to be protected, but Democrats are using that principle as a political weapon, suggesting that any serious look at fraud is intended to "disenfranchise" voters. This is a naked attempt to protect their friends at Acorn, who have been registering thousands of phony voters. Congress put the voter fraud statutes on the books, and Justice is obliged to enforce them.

I find this a disturbing situation after going through the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004.

McCain-Palin 2008

Question: "Is State Board of Elections Non-Partisan Any Longer?"

An alarming question has been raised by Southside Conservative over at the Contemporary Conservative.

In his post, "Is State Board of Elections Non-Partisan Any Longer," SC comments:

Documents recently obtained through a FOIA request made to the State Board of Elections (SBE) are disturbing in their revelation of the involvement by both the Governor's Chief of Staff and an attorney representing the Obama campaign in a policy shift regarding student voter registration.

Posting in Part 1 of what promises to be more information on the way, SC raises concerns of changes at registrars' offices statewide (and possibly nationwide?) in student registrations for the 2008 presidential campaign ... changes that are contrary to normal operating policy but have been described as "clarifications."

SC ends with this:

The next post in this series will walk you through what has been going on behind the scenes the last few months. It's not pretty and not at all what we have come to expect in the Commonwealth.

Stay tuned....

Ohio Democrat Sec of State balks at federal voter fraud order

After a federal judge ruled that Ohio's Democrat Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner had violated federal election law and ruled for a review of possible voter fraud registrations, breaking news today is that Ms. Brunner has filed to block that request. She has appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the lower court ruling that ordered a review of questionable voter registration forms.

The ruling was originally ordered because of discrepancies in the voter rolls:

Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner estimated that an initial review found that about 200,000 newly registered voters reported information that did not match motor-vehicle or Social Security records, Brunner spokesman Kevin Kidder said. Some discrepancies could be as simple as a misspelling, while others could be more significant.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati sided with the Ohio Republican Party on Tuesday and ordered Brunner to set up a system that provides those names to county elections boards. The GOP contends the information will help prevent fraud.

Time is running out. This needs to be settled. Why is Ms. Brunner not willing to clear up any questions of voter fraud?

Voter fraud ... a growing problem

Each presidential year we have dealt with voter fraud, a problem that seems to grow worse every four years. This year is no exception.

Craig Orndorff over at Shenandoah GOP brings up some good points in Suspicious voter registration activity popping up where he writes:

When I was with the College Republicans at the University of Virginia, I learned a very important lesson about the magic of federalism. The election of 2004 waged all around my freshman year, and the College Republicans were charged with ensuring that Republican leaning students got their absentee ballot applications and registering those who were not registered. Sounded simple enough. However, the trick was that with students from all fifty states, that meant that I had fifty different deadlines to contend with. Talk about headaches.

Well, field organizers on both sides are facing those headaches right now (although the majority only have to deal with one state’s rules and regulations). In the rush to get as many voters registered as possible, we’re beginning to see some suspicious activity.

Craig outlines issues in Virginia and Nevada which are just the tip of the iceberg in a nationwide problem that may be a deciding factor on November 4th.