A
Archangel
Guest
Voter-Fraud Rethink
By JOHN FUND
January 17, 2008; Page A16
Both Democrats and Republicans are good at practicing hypocrisy when they
need to. But it's still breathtaking to see how some Democrats ignore that
it was only last week they argued before the Supreme Court that an Indiana
law requiring voters show ID at the polls would reduce voter turnout and
disenfranchise minorities. Nevada allies of Hillary Clinton have just sued
to shut down several caucus sites inside casinos along the Las Vegas Strip,
potentially disenfranchising thousands of Hispanic or black shift workers
who couldn't otherwise attend the 11:30 a.m. caucus this coming Saturday.
D. Taylor, the president of the Culinary Workers Union that represents many
casino workers, notes that legal complaint was filed just two days after
his union endorsed Barack Obama. He says the state teachers union, most of
whose leadership backs Mrs. Clinton, realized that the Culinary union would
be able to use the casino caucuses to better exercise its clout on behalf
of Mr. Obama, and used a law firm with Clinton ties to file the suit.
Mr. Taylor exploded after Bill Clinton came out in favor of the lawsuit on
Monday, and Hillary Clinton refused to take a stand. "This is the Clinton
campaign," he said. "They tried to disenfranchise students in Iowa. Now
they're trying to disenfranchise people here in Nevada." He later told the
Journal's June Kronholz, "You'd think the Democratic Party elite would
disavow this, but the silence has been deafening." (Late Tuesday the
Democratic National Committee quietly filed a motion supporting the Nevada
party's rules.)
However, the lawsuit has created an uproar among voters. It was the No. 1
issue among 30 Nevada Democrats participating in a Fox News focus group on
Tuesday night; the anger among rank-and-file voters was palpable. The
left-wing Nation magazine has denounced the suit as an attempt to "suppress
the vote."
The case goes before a federal judge in Las Vegas this morning. Plaintiffs
argue that the caucus sites on the Strip unfairly discriminate against
other workers on-duty that day. Lynn Warne, president of the teachers
union, insists "our only interest is fairness." But instead of seeking
additional at-large locations, they want to close down the casino sites.
Backers of the suit claim they didn't learn of the caucus rules until
recently, although they were approved at a party convention nine months
ago. Nevada Democrats are free to set their own rules for a caucus, which
isn't a government-run election. And as in Iowa, the Nevada caucus is
designed to be unfair to many people, including those who are out of town,
sick or value a secret ballot (since all voting must be public).
But the time to argue about the rules has passed. As Rob Richie, executive
director of the liberal group FairVote, says, "You simply don't want to
reduce the number of places to vote or do a last-minute change if you want
people to participate."
Meanwhile, Democrats will also be asking for identification at caucus
sites. The nine at-large casino sites are meant only for workers who can
prove they are employed within 2.5 miles of the Strip, an area that Barack
Obama notes includes thousands "working at McDonald's" as well as gas
stations and bodegas.
Democratic leaders insist workers need only show an employee badge. If they
don't have one, a party spokeswoman lamely says "we'll somehow accommodate
them." The Las Vegas Review Journal notes "some Strip workers will have no
alternative but to provide photo identification." For a party that compares
photo ID requirements to Jim Crow poll taxes, even when state governments
distribute the IDs for free, the irony is rich.
And it doesn't stop there. Opponents of the Indiana photo ID law used Faye
Buis-Ewing, a 72-year-old retiree who had trouble getting a state-issued
ID, as a poster child for how the law would block voters. Then it was
learned Ms. Buis-Ewing lives most of the year in Florida, has claimed
residency there, and was illegally registered to vote in both states.
Confronted with these facts, Ms. Buis-Ewing was unrepentant. "I feel like
I'm a victim here," she told the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette. "I never
intended to do anything wrong. I know a lot of people in Florida in this
same situation."
She's right. But "snowbird" registrations in multiple states can swing
skintight elections, and are a good reason to tighten both identification
and absentee ballot laws. In Florida, where the Bush-Gore presidential
election was decided by 537 votes, the New York Daily News found in 2004
that between 400 and 1,000 voters registered in Florida and New York City
had voted twice in at least one recent election.
Selective outrage, anyone? In 1995, Barack Obama sued Illinois over its
voter registration rolls on behalf of the radical group ACORN, and he now
rails against Clintonista attempts to shut down Nevada caucus sites and
photo ID laws. But just last September, Oprah Winfrey held a lavish
fundraiser for Mr. Obama at her California estate. None of the 1,500 guests
could enter until they presented a government-issued photo ID that could be
compared to a guest list. When asked about this, the Obama campaign had no
comment.
Republicans can also be hypocrites, pushing photo ID laws while downplaying
the larger issue of fraud linked to absentee ballots, which are popular
with their suburban voters.
Meanwhile, voters are increasingly concerned about all kinds of ways to
undermine ballot-box integrity. A new Rasmussen poll finds that 17% of
Americans think large numbers of legitimate voters are prevented from
voting -- and 23% believe many illegal votes are cast.
After the 2000 Florida recount debacle, Congress compromised when it passed
the Help America Vote Act. Sen. Chris Dodd, its Democratic co-sponsor,
hailed it as both "making it easier to vote and harder to cheat." But the
law's limited reach needs to be extended at both the federal and state
level. Here's hoping both parties are so tired of this year's partisan
wrangling that next year Congress can reach for Sen. Dodd's twin goals.
Archangel
By JOHN FUND
January 17, 2008; Page A16
Both Democrats and Republicans are good at practicing hypocrisy when they
need to. But it's still breathtaking to see how some Democrats ignore that
it was only last week they argued before the Supreme Court that an Indiana
law requiring voters show ID at the polls would reduce voter turnout and
disenfranchise minorities. Nevada allies of Hillary Clinton have just sued
to shut down several caucus sites inside casinos along the Las Vegas Strip,
potentially disenfranchising thousands of Hispanic or black shift workers
who couldn't otherwise attend the 11:30 a.m. caucus this coming Saturday.
D. Taylor, the president of the Culinary Workers Union that represents many
casino workers, notes that legal complaint was filed just two days after
his union endorsed Barack Obama. He says the state teachers union, most of
whose leadership backs Mrs. Clinton, realized that the Culinary union would
be able to use the casino caucuses to better exercise its clout on behalf
of Mr. Obama, and used a law firm with Clinton ties to file the suit.
Mr. Taylor exploded after Bill Clinton came out in favor of the lawsuit on
Monday, and Hillary Clinton refused to take a stand. "This is the Clinton
campaign," he said. "They tried to disenfranchise students in Iowa. Now
they're trying to disenfranchise people here in Nevada." He later told the
Journal's June Kronholz, "You'd think the Democratic Party elite would
disavow this, but the silence has been deafening." (Late Tuesday the
Democratic National Committee quietly filed a motion supporting the Nevada
party's rules.)
However, the lawsuit has created an uproar among voters. It was the No. 1
issue among 30 Nevada Democrats participating in a Fox News focus group on
Tuesday night; the anger among rank-and-file voters was palpable. The
left-wing Nation magazine has denounced the suit as an attempt to "suppress
the vote."
The case goes before a federal judge in Las Vegas this morning. Plaintiffs
argue that the caucus sites on the Strip unfairly discriminate against
other workers on-duty that day. Lynn Warne, president of the teachers
union, insists "our only interest is fairness." But instead of seeking
additional at-large locations, they want to close down the casino sites.
Backers of the suit claim they didn't learn of the caucus rules until
recently, although they were approved at a party convention nine months
ago. Nevada Democrats are free to set their own rules for a caucus, which
isn't a government-run election. And as in Iowa, the Nevada caucus is
designed to be unfair to many people, including those who are out of town,
sick or value a secret ballot (since all voting must be public).
But the time to argue about the rules has passed. As Rob Richie, executive
director of the liberal group FairVote, says, "You simply don't want to
reduce the number of places to vote or do a last-minute change if you want
people to participate."
Meanwhile, Democrats will also be asking for identification at caucus
sites. The nine at-large casino sites are meant only for workers who can
prove they are employed within 2.5 miles of the Strip, an area that Barack
Obama notes includes thousands "working at McDonald's" as well as gas
stations and bodegas.
Democratic leaders insist workers need only show an employee badge. If they
don't have one, a party spokeswoman lamely says "we'll somehow accommodate
them." The Las Vegas Review Journal notes "some Strip workers will have no
alternative but to provide photo identification." For a party that compares
photo ID requirements to Jim Crow poll taxes, even when state governments
distribute the IDs for free, the irony is rich.
And it doesn't stop there. Opponents of the Indiana photo ID law used Faye
Buis-Ewing, a 72-year-old retiree who had trouble getting a state-issued
ID, as a poster child for how the law would block voters. Then it was
learned Ms. Buis-Ewing lives most of the year in Florida, has claimed
residency there, and was illegally registered to vote in both states.
Confronted with these facts, Ms. Buis-Ewing was unrepentant. "I feel like
I'm a victim here," she told the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette. "I never
intended to do anything wrong. I know a lot of people in Florida in this
same situation."
She's right. But "snowbird" registrations in multiple states can swing
skintight elections, and are a good reason to tighten both identification
and absentee ballot laws. In Florida, where the Bush-Gore presidential
election was decided by 537 votes, the New York Daily News found in 2004
that between 400 and 1,000 voters registered in Florida and New York City
had voted twice in at least one recent election.
Selective outrage, anyone? In 1995, Barack Obama sued Illinois over its
voter registration rolls on behalf of the radical group ACORN, and he now
rails against Clintonista attempts to shut down Nevada caucus sites and
photo ID laws. But just last September, Oprah Winfrey held a lavish
fundraiser for Mr. Obama at her California estate. None of the 1,500 guests
could enter until they presented a government-issued photo ID that could be
compared to a guest list. When asked about this, the Obama campaign had no
comment.
Republicans can also be hypocrites, pushing photo ID laws while downplaying
the larger issue of fraud linked to absentee ballots, which are popular
with their suburban voters.
Meanwhile, voters are increasingly concerned about all kinds of ways to
undermine ballot-box integrity. A new Rasmussen poll finds that 17% of
Americans think large numbers of legitimate voters are prevented from
voting -- and 23% believe many illegal votes are cast.
After the 2000 Florida recount debacle, Congress compromised when it passed
the Help America Vote Act. Sen. Chris Dodd, its Democratic co-sponsor,
hailed it as both "making it easier to vote and harder to cheat." But the
law's limited reach needs to be extended at both the federal and state
level. Here's hoping both parties are so tired of this year's partisan
wrangling that next year Congress can reach for Sen. Dodd's twin goals.
Archangel
