# Voter ID Laws: Necessary to combat rampant fraud or subtle subjugation of the Democratic demographic **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 24, 2012, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971 "2012-05-24T17:25:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2012, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/81 "2012-05-25T22:54:51Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > No slippery slope there at all, **Bricker**. None whatsoever. We’re just predicting the future, it just so happens that the future we are predicting and making laws to affect is actually **uphill** in your world. So kudos to your forward-thinking future world where things slide upwards. I don’t understand what this paragraph means. The event, if it happens, is foreseeable. There’s no question about that: I am foreseeing it. This does not mean I claim it’s inevitable. Does that help? > [@](#): > > You have not answered my question asking you to sum up your own views. I will ask again: So you think it’s fine to disenfranchise x-number of voters in order to address a problem that doesn’t exist. And this is supposed to make public confidence in elections better. Am I correct? I reject your formulation. The problem I’m discussing does exist. And the solution I support does indeed make public confidence in elections better. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2012, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/82 "2012-05-25T22:58:59Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > **Bricker** , this “confidence of the electorate” that you hold so dear, is there any way you can make that more tangible? Its a bit like the rosy scent of the unicorn. By what measure is the “confidence of the electorate” threatened? Or is it that the c of the e might become threatened at some future date, unless immediate and urgent steps are not taken? > > I know what the unemployment rate is. The number of registered voter in Iowa. What is the “confidence of the electorate”? I agree that “confidence of the electorate” is not susceptible to a precise metric. There are metrics that could provide a useful proxy. We, for example, routinely ask the pollsters to provide us the Presidential approval rating. I don’t see why a similar poll that simply asked, “How confident are you that the election results fairly count only legitimate votes and deliver a result that fairly represents the majority of voters’ will?” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2012, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/83 "2012-05-25T23:05:21Z")
> [@davidm](#): > > **Bricker** , > If the argument isn’t about turnout then what is it about? Why does confidence matter if it has no effect on the outcome? Because it’s important for people to believe that the process is fair, that it counts only legitimate voters, and that the result is an accurate summary of the majority of voters’ intent. This is the tie that binds citizens to government. It is the sentiment captured by Thomas Jefferson so eloquently when he asserted that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed. It is, in short, the entire basis for our national sovereign existence. > [@](#): > > Regarding your point about people being willing to walk 60 feet versus being able to walk 250. It isn’t always about what people are willing to do. In some cases it’s about what they’re able to do. > > But even if is just about what they’re willing to do, why make things more difficult for legitimate voters when you gain nothing in exchange for it? I don’t agree you gain nothing for it. > [@](#): > > But forget all that for a moment. Forget the study. You say that the law does nothing to decrease fraud by any meaningful amount. You say that, even so, it is justified because it increases voter confidence. > > Okay. Suppose it does increase confidence. Suppose confidence does matter. What is the legitimate response to that? A law that doesn’t actually increase the security of elections? A law that, because it achieves nothing, does nothing to give them any legitimate (as opposed to imagined) reason to have increased confidence? I don’t agree the law achieves nothing. > [@](#): > > What kind of governance is that? Rather than attempting to correct their ignorance, let’s just play into it, even if it means making voting more difficult (or even impossible) for some. It’s the kind of governance that arises from our system: namely, that we elect representatives to reflect our popular will. Your question has a flavor of “the ignorant voters don’t know what’s good for them,” which is a position I reject. > [@](#): > > If the problem is confidence and the lack of confidence is based on misconceptions, isn’t better to spend that money on educating them and correcting those misconceptions? > > At the very least, isn’t it better to spend that money on something that would give them a real reason for increased confidence, such as increased security for absentee voting or doing something about the lack of any meaningful verifiability for many of the voting systems we use? I agree that both of those are worthy goals, and I support them. > [@](#): > > Why is it that out of all the possible ways to increase confidence, the one used is something that doesn’t actually increase security but does make if more difficult for many to vote? Hell, one would almost thing that someone is intentionally trying to suppress voting, but that’s never happened in this country, has it? :rolleyes: What proposals for increased security for absentee voting or doing something about the lack of any meaningful verifiability for many of the voting systems we use have been advanced in legislatures? What was the result? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2012, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/84 "2012-05-25T23:09:43Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > Can you think of another? His **stated** reason of “supporting confidence in the process” is not even worthy of serious discussion. On the contrary, your claim that my stated reason of supporting confidence in the process is not even worthy of serious discussion is _itself_ not worthy of discussion. Therefore, stop discussing it. See how easy that is? As my high school debate teacher used to remind us, a gratuitous assertion may be equally gratuitously denied. But I’m willing to stop discussing it, since the laws have already passed and are in place. And the Supreme Court has already ruled that they pass constitutional muster. So – sure, my reason isn’t worthy. How about this one: ha, ha, ha!! The law’s in place and the courts ruled it stays. Ha, ha, ha, you lose!!!1!!! Now THAT’s a response not worthy of discussion. See the difference? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2012, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/85 "2012-05-25T23:13:47Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > Because there’s no difference between someone having to walk a little farther and someone who is denied the right to vote even if they make that walk. > > Next, you want to claim that unless a toga-clad government servant hand-delivers our ballots and feed us grapes while we tick off our selections at whatever time and place we happen to be when we want to vote that we are disenfranchised? > > Your false equivalancy, that you would compare the inconvenience of having to walk a little farther with the inconvenience that many face in aquiring ID, is obvious. Also, the path to the gym doesn’t have a toll road on it, does it? Because it costs money to get a replacement birth certificate, it costs money to get an ID (although some states waived that for voters, which actuaally cost the states revenue), and it costs money for someone to take off their jobs to go to the local agency to get the ID. There is no false equivalency. Jesus, did any of you people actually study debate? Or do you have a list of fallacies and pick one that sounds like it might match? You didn’t answer my question. But from your response, it sounds like you agree that moving the polling place does not disenfranchise anyone. Now, focus on the next question; it’s important. WHY? How do we know where to draw the line? At what additional point do we say that the additional difficulty disenfranchises someone? > [@](#): > > We have established that some voters are being legitimately disenfranchised by Voter ID laws. We have established that there are already laws against voter fraud. We have established that those affected are predominantly Democratic voters (students, the poor, the elderly). If you have to start redefining what “disenfranchising” is to laughable degrees in order to bolster your point, you should reconsider your point. “We?” We have done no such thing. You may have convinced yourself of it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2012, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/86 "2012-05-25T23:18:18Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > I speak to the issue of uncertainty in the electoral process. The 2000 presidential election raised the specter of doubt in election results. (Is that an unfair reading of your words?) And you believe that voter ID laws will instill greater confidence in the voting system. Why? How will laws against voter fraud solve a problem (lack of confidence) that was not caused by voter fraud in the first place? > > If I might continue your analogy, what you are proposing amounts to anti-counterfeiting measures on the tickets to attend the game. The possibility of a bad call affecting the outcome remains just as likely as before. No, that’s fair. But I reject your continuation of my analogy. The spectators don’t affect the outcome in the way the referees do. Voter ID laws will instill greater confidence in the system because, with them in place, a future highly close election result won’t be susceptible to fears that, but for fraudulent voting, it could have gone the other way. Right now, the claim the voter fraud is not a problem rests on the fact that even though it exists, it exists in such small numbers that it’s never (so far as we know) changed the outcome of an election. A future razor-thin election could not make that claim… unless we could say that everyone who voted had a photo ID. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2012, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/87 "2012-05-25T23:19:43Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > So, for the third time, the question: did Democrat-controlled legislatures in Rhode Island and Delaware have voter suppression on their minds when they passed voter ID laws? Funny how these rational, evidence-based folks seem to have trouble reading certain lines of text, isn’t it? I also have an unanswered question: why is the burden of proof on me? And, in a fun coincidence, this is the third time I’m asking it. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Tao_s_Revenge)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2012, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/88 "2012-05-25T23:20:29Z")
**Bricker** , still arguing for your pole tax? That’s what Voter ID laws are. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2012, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/89 "2012-05-25T23:28:28Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > **Bricker** , still arguing for your pole tax? That’s what Voter ID laws are. :eek: No, a pole tax would be something much **worse** than that! ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2012, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/90 "2012-05-25T23:31:15Z")
> [@John\_Stamos\_Left\_Ear](#): > > I already replied to this - those laws are quite a bit different than the ones in other states. Which is probably why Democratic-led states passed them. Really? Here is Rhode Island’s law, 17-19-24.2. Voter Identification: > [@](#): > > (b) From and after January 1, 2014, any person claiming to be a registered and eligible voter who desires to vote at a primary election, special election or general election shall provide proof of identity listed in subdivisions (a)(1). Here’s section (a)(1): > [@](#): > > (1) A valid and current document showing a photograph of the person to whom the > 7 document was issued, including without limitation: > 8 (i) Rhode Island driver’s license; > 9 (ii) Rhode Island voter identification card; > 10 (iii) United States passport; > 11 (iv) Identification card issued by a United States educational institution; > 12 (v) United States military identification card; > 13 (vi) Identification card issued by the United States or the State of Rhode Island; > 14 (vii) Government issued medical card. The law provides that the state will issue free IDs, and a voter without such ID can use a provisional ballot. In what way does this differ from the procedures you object to? Specifically, please. For example, here’s ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2012, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/91 "2012-05-25T23:36:39Z")
> [@The\_Tao\_s\_Revenge](#): > > **Bricker** , still arguing for your pole tax? That’s what Voter ID laws are. No. Not at all. A poll tax is forbidden by the 24th Amendment. Now, maybe you’re using the phrase in some personal sense. Perhaps you have a personal belief that they are “morally” a poll tax. But I don’t agree, and neither does the US Supreme Court. While you can of course dismiss my opinion as easily as I dismiss yours, the Supremes actually get to decide the law. And they have made it quite clear that voter ID laws are not a poll tax. Crawford v. Marion County. I think that abortion should be considered to be murder. But you won’t find me saying that abortion is murder. Because I recognize that, contrary to my personal beliefs, the law does not agree with me. In another thread, **BrainGlutton** is insisting that conservatives can’t accept facts, while liberals can. This is a good example to bring to his attention. You can’t accept what the law says. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 25, 2012, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/92 "2012-05-25T23:41:38Z")
> [@](#): > > “This isn’t a strict photo ID law like the others being debated across the country,” says Scott Westbrook Simpson, press secretary for the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, an advocacy group that opposes photo ID bills. “This is not at all indicative of bipartisan support for these other bills, like the ones in Indiana or Georgia. Particularly, this law allows folks without a photo ID to still vote by provisional ballot.” Indiana also allows a provisional ballot. So does Arizona. I’m not going to quote each state’s laws. Pick a state you believe has an objectionable voter ID law. ---
**Author:** ![Zakalwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zakalwe/32/270_2.png) [@Zakalwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zakalwe)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/93 "2012-05-26T01:40:20Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > agree that there is, as you say, a non-zero population of voters that will be so discommoded by the requirement to obtain voter ID that they will not vote. And I regard it as an acceptable consequence of being able to say that when people cast votes, we have a system in place that verifies the voter’s identity. We should go with “guilty until proven innocent”. Sure, a non-zero population of people will be discommoded by being put in prison erroneously. I regard that as an acceptable consequence of being able to say that when people commit crimes, we have a system in place that ensures they will go to jail. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/94 "2012-05-26T01:49:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > A future razor-thin election could not make that claim… unless we could say that everyone who voted had a photo ID. Such power the photo ID has, able to end abuses of the absentee voting system and rigging by election officials, two of the most common sources of voter fraud in american elections. I am very interested in learning the process by which the photo ID is able to achieve this laudable goal. ---
**Author:** ![Algher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Algher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algher)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/95 "2012-05-26T01:52:28Z")
> [@Inner\_Stickler](#): > > Such power the photo ID has, able to end abuses of the absentee voting system and rigging by election officials, two of the most common sources of voter fraud in american elections. I am very interested in learning the process by which the photo ID is able to achieve this laudable goal. Cite for your claims regarding the most common sources of voter fraud? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/96 "2012-05-26T01:58:33Z")
In the ideal, every citizen’s vote is equal. We know that isn’t true, but we are working on it. It follows, then, that every citizens access to voting ought to be equal as well, in a rough and practical way. It doesn’t have to be a question of disenfranchisement to be taken seriously. Making it more difficult, less convenient for ones political enemies to exercise their rights still isn’t kosher, still isn’t a level playing field. True its not as bad as out and out disenfranchisement. And dysentary isn’t so bad as smallpox, but I want neither. ---
**Author:** ![Inner\_Stickler](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/inner_stickler/32/318_2.png) [@Inner\_Stickler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Inner_Stickler)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/97 "2012-05-26T02:14:58Z")
It came from an online article I read somewhere. Who knows, maybe voter impersonation is one of the top 3. Here’s some data dug up by the RNLA. [http://www.rnla.org/votefraud.asp](http://www.rnla.org/votefraud.asp) I don’t really feel like going through each link and determining whether producing a photo ID at the poll would have prevented the crime. [This article](http://www.alternet.org/news/153435/republican_lawyers_group's_own_study_undercuts_vote_fraud_claims) claims to have done some fact-checking on the study. Their conclusion is that photo IDs would not have helped in many of the cases and the few that it would have are statistically insignificant. ---
**Author:** ![davidm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/davidm/32/225_2.png) [@davidm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidm)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/98 "2012-05-26T02:38:39Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > It’s the kind of governance that arises from our system: namely, that we elect representatives to reflect our popular will. Your question has a flavor of “the ignorant voters don’t know what’s good for them,” which is a position I reject. It’s the kind of governance that comes from ALEC, an organization that the people did not vote for. > **[Home - Generation Progress](https://genprogress.org)** > > Young people working for progressive change. In any case, I reject your implication that anything desired by the voters is automatically acceptable. Voters do not have the right, at least ethically, to make it more difficult for others to vote any more than they have the right to restrict the free speech of others. If you want to categorize that as an elitist attitude, that’s your right, but it’s a bullshit categorization. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/99 "2012-05-26T03:00:44Z")
Frankly, I don’t understand what all the fooraw is about. In the last 30 years or so, I have not voted WITHOUT showing an ID. I simply walk in, hand them my DL, they look me up in the book, I sign by my name, I go vote. What the hell is the problem with requiring everyone to do that? The only reason that I can see for anyone to object to it is that they want people voting fraudulently. By requiring display of a voter id at the polling place, we eliminate the dead folks that show up to vote. We eliminate most live folks who show up to vote multiple times, and if we included the requirement that they provide a fingerprint to vote, that would eliminate them as well. What’s the downside to this? ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 3:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971/100 "2012-05-26T03:21:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, that’s fair. > > But I reject your continuation of my analogy. The spectators don’t affect the outcome in the way the referees do. > > Voter ID laws will instill greater confidence in the system because, with them in place, a future highly close election result won’t be susceptible to fears that, but for fraudulent voting, it could have gone the other way. > > Right now, the claim the voter fraud is not a problem rests on the fact that even though it exists, it exists in such small numbers that it’s never (so far as we know) changed the outcome of an election. > > A future razor-thin election could not make that claim… unless we could say that everyone who voted had a photo ID. It seems to me that there are three issues at play in this thread that could be said to cast doubt on elections as a true measure of the will of the people: 1. Human factors and technical issues. These are the kinds of things that happened in Florida in 2000; butterfly ballots, hanging chads, ambiguous markings, absentee deadlines, recount rules, etc. What would you say the accuracy of a modern U.S. election is, 99.99%, maybe? That’s one error in ten-thousand votes. With 5.8 million total votes between Bush and Gore, that’s an uncertainty of 580 votes. Want to increase confidence in election results? Put your effort into pushing that number closer to 100% 2. Voter fraud. At worst, this is a small problem, and voter ID laws would not prevent all the fraud. 3. People who would vote, but can’t because of voter ID laws. We’re human beings, and the things we create are never perfect. Our elections aren’t 100% accurate, and attempts to identify ineligible voters won’t be either. There are reports coming out of Florida right now of eligible voters being wrongly sent notices that they’re to be stricken from the roles. And somewhere there’s a person who can’t spare the time off work to go across town to get a certified copy of his birth certificate so he can wait in another line to get a voter ID with his picture on it, even if it is free. I doubt there are very many people in those situations; a mere handful. But you’ve said that the voter ID laws will restore confidence in those elections with a razor thin margin, and so it’s fair to say that the negative effects of those laws will also come into play in those same razor-thin elections. Would you disenfranchise 100 eligible voters to prevent 99 cases of fraud; and if so, why should that give us more confidence in the results as a measure of the will of the people? I don’t understand why someone would ignore point #1, endorse point #2, and dismiss point #3. And as has been mentioned in another election-related thread: 1. The chief elections officer in a state is allowed to be the campaign chair for one of the candidates. Currently, this is Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, co-chair of Mitt Romney’s campaign in that state. There may be others. Now, I can’t point to any specific instance of fraud that he has perpetrated, but the issue is one of confidence. I’d have a lot more confidence in the results if the man running the election weren’t also working to elect a specific candidate. Would you, **Bricker** , join in a call for Bennett to step down as Arizona Secretary of State, and to pass laws to prevent such a conflict of interest in the future? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/voter-id-laws-necessary-to-combat-rampant-fraud-or-subtle-subjugation-of-the-democratic-demographic/622971.md?page=6)