Page 62

cast votes were “large enough to plausibly account for... victories in a few close elections.”⁴ One example of a notably close election which was decided by voter fraud occurred right here in Minnesota. In 2008, former senator Al Franken won his election by just 312 votes. Disturbingly, however, according to data present-

One Georgia county alone saw 5,412 ballots issued to names of people who had died. ed to the Minnesota Supreme Court during legal action following the election, between 1,099 and 1,670 counted ballots were cast by felons ineligible to vote.⁵ This was allowed by the lackadaisical attitude which surrounds our system of voting, a system that does not even require individuals to prove they are who they claim to be. Even this small instance of voter fraud resulted in the election of a senator whose presence allowed for the passage of Obamacare, a landmark piece of legislation that forever altered the American healthcare system. Without Franken’s tie breaking vote in the senate, Obamacare would never have become law, and the modern conversation surrounding health insurance would be radically different. Had those 1,099-1,670 felons not been allowed to illegally vote, Franken wouldn’t have even been in office. This one small instance of voter fraud, which could have been prevented by a culture of order and lawfulness in our elections, had longstanding, irreversible national consequences. Ohio is another example of a state where diligence in lawful voting is important. Again, Von Sparkovsky explains how “in 2014, 16 local races in Ohio were decided by one vote or through breaking a tie. In 2013, 35 local races in Ohio were that close.”⁶ These local elections are important because Ohio is a swing state in presidential elections. The highly competitive nature of local elections means that elections are neck and neck in the Buckeye State. It is imperative, therefore, that law is upheld in this electoral battleground, and that every vote cast is valid as the representation of one legal citizen with voting rights. Thankfully, the majority of Americans think this way. Gallup data from 2016 reveals that 80% 60

of Americans support voter ID laws requiring the presentation of government issued photo ID to vote.⁷ Interestingly, given the narrative of those who oppose ID laws, whites only lead people of color in support of voter ID by 4 percentage points. 81% of whites favored voter ID laws, as opposed to 77% of people of color.⁸ I believe that the best way to determine the wills and opinions of group of people is to listen to them. The narrative that voter ID laws would be disparaging to minority communities seems to not hold water in those very communities. Further, it seems that minority support for voter ID laws is increasing with the passage of time. A 2012 Washington Post poll reported 65% support for voter ID laws within black communities.⁹ In 4 years, minority support for voter ID rose nearly 20%. America is a democracy by and for the people. It seems to me that the overwhelming majority of the American people believe their democracy should be run in a lawful fashion, ensuring that elections are conducted fairly, affirming that each vote is a fair representation of one citizen. What nation, committed to upholding democratic principles, would deny the people basic control over the honesty of their own elections? Voter ID laws are legal, too! In 2005, Indiana required all voters to present a photographic ID at the polling place.¹⁰ Those without ID were allowed to cast a provisional ballot. These individuals were then given an allotment of 10 days to provide an ID or state that they could not afford one. Those who were unable to afford an ID would be given the opportunity to acquire one for free, and still have their vote count. This allowed some individuals an opportunity to acquire a free ID that can be used for other activities as well. Fraud was prevented, and no one was disenfranchised because there was a solution provided for all to verify their identities and cast a legal ballot. However, William Crawford (D-Indiana House Rep.) saw these rules as an attempt to suppress votes, and served as the plaintiff in a case against the election board of Marion County, IN. The case reached the Supreme Court in 2008. By this point, it had been renamed Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. The Court ruled 6-2 in favor of the legality of voter ID laws. The majority opin-

Profile for Rebuttal

Spring 2019  

We proudly present our first issue! The topics include abortion, the Iran deal, voter ID laws, targeted killings by governments, Hamilton: A...

Spring 2019  

We proudly present our first issue! The topics include abortion, the Iran deal, voter ID laws, targeted killings by governments, Hamilton: A...

Profile for rebuttal
Advertisement