Join Your TownColumnists 
The end justifies the means
By Todd A. Carges
Wed Jan 16, 2008, 04:29 PM EST
Voter fraud has always been a threat to our Representative Republic. Preserving the sanctity of the right to vote should be one of our highest priorities. Right now the Supreme Court is hearing a case that will have a significant impact on our ability to protect our Republic from voter fraud in the future.
In an effort to prevent fraud, the state of Indiana passed a law in 2005 that requires voters to show a state-issued photo identification (such as a driver's license) before voting. Sounds logical, right? I'll never forget the first time that I voted. I was 19, and I was shocked that I didn't have to show some sort of identification. It just seemed like common sense. Twenty-four other states agree and have passed similar laws as a basic step toward preventing voter fraud.
So what's the problem? Well, it turns out that the state Democrat party challenged the law saying that it was meant to disenfranchise voters without state-issued identifications (keep in mind that anyone can go and get a state-issued identification at any time). They claim that the poor and senior citizens (likely Democrat voters) don't have the money or means to obtain a state-issued ID. This is ridiculous, of course. If they can't get to their town hall to get an ID in 364 days, then how will they get to the polls to vote on one day? Also, anyone can vote by absentee ballot without an ID, and thus no one is disenfranchised. Studies have even shown that the number of voters has actually increased in each election since the law was passed. So, the law was upheld by the Federal Trial Court and 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Now it is in the Supreme Court's hands and the implications of their ruling will have a major impact on voter fraud for years to come.
There doesn't seem to be a substantive reason to repeal the law. However, Indiana Democrats aren't alone in challenging the concept, the most powerful people in the Democrat party don't want this requirement. In 2002, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act which included a provision that required first-time voters to show an ID. The bill passed 92-2 in the Senate. Guess who opposed it? New York Democrats Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer. Hillary explained her vote by saying it would "disproportionately affect ethnic and racial minorities, recently naturalized American citizens, language minorities, the poor, the homeless, the millions of eligible New York voters who do not have a driver's license, and those individuals who otherwise would have exercised their right to vote without these new provisions." Now, considering that the bill allowed the use of Social Security numbers, pay stubs (including government issued checks), utility bills and other forms of identification, it becomes clear that Hillary must have ulterior motives.
Just a little research provides insight into what those motives might be. On Nov. 6, 2000 (one day before the national election) the California Democrat Party sent out thousands (some estimate millions) of mailers to immigrants who had citizenship requests before the INS. These mailers were signed by President Bill Clinton himself and informed these non-citizens in both English and Spanish that they were registered to vote as a Democrat and that there was a special voter card enclosed to help the process go smoothly. This was blatant voter fraud on a massive scale. First, these were non-citizens and second, a government database was being used to target these people and persuade them to vote Democrat. It is impossible to know how many of these people voted illegally in that election.
In 1996, then Vice President Al Gore oversaw an INS program called "Citizenship USA." The main thrust was to clear a backlog of 1.2 million citizenship applicants. This crash program pushed these applicants through the system without FBI background checks. The program ran from October 1995 through September 1996.
Coincidentally, these people were naturalized right before the 1996 election. Douglas Farbrother, an official on Gore's team is quoted in a Justice Department report as saying he "believed that the (citizenship) program had a deadline that was directly connected to the upcoming election." By foregoing the customary background checks on many of the applicants, the Clinton administration prioritized the creation of thousands of new voters over national security interests. Investigations into the matter revealed this correspondence between Al Gore and then President Bill Clinton: "You asked us to expedite the naturalization of nearly a million legal aliens who have applied to become citizens...we might be publicly criticized for running a pro-Democrat voter mill and even risk having Congress stop us." Congress did complain and investigate after the election, by then of course it was too late.
Such egregious and successful attempts at voter fraud are evidence that we need to take measures to prevent it. Hopefully, the Supreme Court upholds the law in Indiana and paves the way for every state to require a state-issued photo identification before voting. After all, it is clear that opponents of the law have ulterior motives and those motives must be recognized before such laws are repealed. On a side note, now you know why so many Democrat leaders are pushing for driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. It's all about the vote.
Visit www.toddcarges.com to see a copy of the letter that Bill Clinton sent out in 2000.
