During the big vote in Scotland on whether or not to leave the United Kingdom of Great Britain, the “no” vote prevailed by the way, the Daily Mail reported the following on suspected vote fraud:
“Police in Glasgow are investigating ten cases of suspected electoral fraud. Voters turned up at polling stations to find that people had already voted using their names.
“Glasgow City Council confirmed that there had been 10 instances where people had gone to vote and found their names had already been crossed off the list.
“Spokesman Colin Edgar said: ‘We’ve had a number of suggestions across the course of the day that people have turned up at the polling station to vote and they appear to have voted already,” the story read.
This is precisely the type of vote fraud that Texas Voter I.D. law is set to prevent. The Left claims there is little to no vote fraud of this type and thus the law is not needed but, the very inability to check I.D. at the poll, without the law, makes it extremely hard to determine if such fraud is happening. This is because often only a small percentage of people actually vote who are on the registered voter list meaning that the odds are very good that impersonators will not be noticed by a voter showing up later. Also, those who commit the fraud in systematic manner are thought to register other people they know are very unlikely to vote and then vote in their place.
As an election judge I’ve seen this happen using hard-copy voter rolls. A voter shows up and yet has already been marked as having voted early or someone the same day has signed by their name. Because we did not check identification we are unable to prevent such from happening and additionally, there is no way to even know who the fraudulent voter was in order to investigate and prosecute making it an easy crime with very low risk.
This is a crime that Voter I.D. helps prevent without an undue burden on citizens. Opposing such is to put demagoguery ahead of pure elections which protect the value of each person’s vote.
Scotland vote gave example of Voter I.D. law value
Robert Pratt
During the big vote in Scotland on whether or not to leave the United Kingdom of Great Britain, the “no” vote prevailed by the way, the Daily Mail reported the following on suspected vote fraud:
“Police in Glasgow are investigating ten cases of suspected electoral fraud. Voters turned up at polling stations to find that people had already voted using their names.
“Glasgow City Council confirmed that there had been 10 instances where people had gone to vote and found their names had already been crossed off the list.
“Spokesman Colin Edgar said: ‘We’ve had a number of suggestions across the course of the day that people have turned up at the polling station to vote and they appear to have voted already,” the story read.
This is precisely the type of vote fraud that Texas Voter I.D. law is set to prevent. The Left claims there is little to no vote fraud of this type and thus the law is not needed but, the very inability to check I.D. at the poll, without the law, makes it extremely hard to determine if such fraud is happening. This is because often only a small percentage of people actually vote who are on the registered voter list meaning that the odds are very good that impersonators will not be noticed by a voter showing up later. Also, those who commit the fraud in systematic manner are thought to register other people they know are very unlikely to vote and then vote in their place.
As an election judge I’ve seen this happen using hard-copy voter rolls. A voter shows up and yet has already been marked as having voted early or someone the same day has signed by their name. Because we did not check identification we are unable to prevent such from happening and additionally, there is no way to even know who the fraudulent voter was in order to investigate and prosecute making it an easy crime with very low risk.
This is a crime that Voter I.D. helps prevent without an undue burden on citizens. Opposing such is to put demagoguery ahead of pure elections which protect the value of each person’s vote.