Myth Of Voter Fraud

As a democratic government, voting is the foundation of the American governmental system and, in extension, the American way of life in general. Voting is considered to be so incremental to the American way of life that it is mentioned in four Constitutional Amendments. These "four separate Amendments – the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th, even use the same powerful language to protect Americans right to vote: 'The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged ...'" (Donnelly). The question is, however, are new voting laws designed in a way that inherently infringes on the rights of people, or is their purpose primarily to protect the integrity of the voting system? While this issue is controversial, the limits

Many have claimed that laws, such as requiring an ID to vote, are designed to prevent voter fraud. If this is true than voter fraud must be a significant problem and there should be evidence that such measures will greatly reduce fraud, however, this is not the case. Political scientist and author Lorraine Minnite reports her analysis of voter fraud in the United States in her book, Myth of Voter Fraud, and comes to the conclusion that, " ... criminal voter fraud is episodic and rare relative to the total number of votes in a given year or election cycle" (Minnite, 57). Other research has also found that laws requiring voters to present ID or proof of citizenship does not prevent the most common forms of voter fraud. In an article analyzing the effectiveness of voter ID laws, the author cites research conducted by the News21 pertaining to all reported cases of election fraud since 2000, they found that "14 percent involved absentee ballot fraud. Voter impersonation, the form of fraud that voter ID laws are designed to prevent, made up only 3.6 percent of those cases. (Other types included double voting, the most common form, at 25 percent, and felons voting when they were prohibited from doing so. But neither of those would be prevented by voter ID laws, either)"

as a result of the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, by a 5-to-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court essentially said to the wealthiest people in this country: you already own much of the American economy. Now, we are going to give you the opportunity to purchase the U.S. Government, the White House, the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House, Governors’ seats, legislatures, and State judicial branches as well. The Citizens United decision hinges on the absurd notion that money is speech, corporations are people, and giving huge piles of undisclosed cash to politicians in exchange for access and influence does not constitute corruption"