"I am not talking about any one particular state effort, but more generally I think for those who would consider trying to use methods, techniques to discourage people from coming to the polls - that's inconsistent with what we say we are as a nation," Holder said.
New laws requiring voters to show photo identification are set to take effect in Kansas, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. And Democrats, who as a party are staunchly opposed to voter ID laws, are already ramping up their efforts to combat the new laws.
[snip]
A report from New York University's Brennan Center for Justice showed that in Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin, all of which will enact stricter photo ID laws before the 2012 election, 3.2 million potential voters do not have the state-issued ID that will be required for them to vote.
Lawrence Norden, an author of the Brennan Center report, said he "absolutely" thinks the new ID laws could impact the outcome of the election.
"We're not claiming that all 3.2 million, in the case of voter ID laws, are actually not going to be able to vote," Norden said. "But what we are saying is, it's going to make it harder for those people to vote and some portion of them are probably not going to be able to vote even though they want to."
"As voting rights experts have noted, the recent stream of laws passed at the state level are a reversal of policies, both federal and state, that were intended to combat voter disenfranchisement and boost voter participation," said Reps. John Conyers, D-Mich., and Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.
Conyers is the committee's top Democrat. Nadler is the top Democrat on its Constitution subcommittee.
They're concerned about new laws in 13 states that they say will curb access to the ballot box.
The changes require voters to present government-approved identification cards, curb voter registration drives by third-party groups, curtail early voting, end same-day registration and overturn rules that give convicted felons who've served their time the right to vote.
Twenty-four states are considering similar measures, according to New York University's Brennan Center for Justice, which issued a report on the topic in October.
That this is about voter suppression and NOT vote fraud is easily proven at least to any person with an open mind. There simply is NOT any evidence of a wide spread voter fraud. Try searching for the evidence your self if you like.
we'll probably never find smoking gun proof that voter fraud laws are aimed at suppressing the black and youth votes. After all, you'd have to be a monumental moron to actually admit this in any kind of written or otherwise permanent form.
Still, let's walk through the evidence:
Research showing that actual voter fraud is minuscule - perhaps 0.001% of the vote or so - is overwhelming and very well known. Republicans have nonetheless been pushing voter fraud laws for nearly two decades.
This costs a lot of money and sucks up a lot of energy.
Parties don't generally spend lots of money and energy on things unless they benefit the party or its supporters in some way.
The evidence that voter fraud laws reduce turnout among groups that trend Democratic is also very well known among party apparatchiks who pay attention to such things.
Maybe you can come up with some alternative interpretation for such a tenacious, coordinated, and energetic campaign. But the obvious explanation is that Republican Party apparatchiks think that voter fraud laws offer a method of reducing Democratic turnout in elections that's both effective and deniable. I really think you have to be almost willfully blind not to see this.
What evidence there is amounts to smoke and mirrors:
More precisely, "voter fraud" occurs when individuals cast ballots despite knowing that they are ineligible to
vote, in an attempt to defraud the election system.
This sounds straightforward. And yet, voter fraud is often conflated, intentionally or unintentionally, with
other forms of election misconduct or irregularities.
There are many such problems that are improperly lumped under the umbrella of "voter fraud." Some result
from technological glitches, whether sinister or benign: for example, voting machines may record inaccurate tallies due to fraud, user error, or technical malfunction.
Some result from honest mistakes by election officials or voters: for example, a person with a conviction may honestly
believe herself eligible to vote when the conviction renders her temporarily ineligible, or an election official may believe that certain identification documents are required to vote when no such requirement exists.
And some irregularities involve fraud or intentional misconduct perpetrated by actors other than individual voters: for example, flyers may spread misinformation about the proper locations or procedures for voting; thugs may be dispatched to intimidate voters at the polls; missing ballot boxes may mysteriously reappear. These are all problems with the election administration system ... but they are not "voter fraud."
