To the Editor:
H. Jay Spiegel and Martin Tillett wrote complementary letters on voter photo IDs and voter fraud, published in your Jan. 19 edition. Mr. Spiegel’s citations were nearly perfect examples of the slippery definitions of ‘voter fraud’ cited by Mr. Tillett.
In the 2007 case in Appalachia, Va., voter ID at the polls wasn’t an issue; it would seem that everybody who sold their vote used their true ID to vote. Absentee ballots stolen from the mails, marked up and mailed in, would not be prevented by requiring ID at the polls.
In the 2004 case of Mr. Williams, he used his true ID, merely swearing that he had no felony conviction when he had such a conviction. This would not be prevented by requiring ID at the polls.
In the 2000 case of Ms. Wilson, she gave an incorrect address, possibly for the purpose of voting in a jurisdiction where she didn’t live, although Mr. Spiegel didn’t specify. This might be prevented by requiring ID at the polls, assuming that the ID has residence address and that the voter doesn’t successfully claim to have moved recently. (Note that requiring a residence address disenfranchises all homeless people, ipso facto.)
In the 1996 case of Mr. Waldrop, he was convicted of incorrect statements in campaign finance reports. This didn’t even involve voting and so would not be prevented by requiring ID at the polls.
And finally Mr. Spiegel cites those who state their ID at the polls without showing an ID card of any kind and asks "Who knows if these claims are true?"
So, from 11 years of data, Mr. Spiegel cites four instances, three of which would absolutely not be affected by an ID requirement, and one which was not a case of impersonation, and then cites the great unknown to solidify his case. I’m sorry, but I’m just not going to be convinced by such "evidence" of the need to disenfranchise everyone who has no government-issued ID and doesn’t have the time, resources, and motivation to go through the rigmarole of getting one.
Larry D. Huffman