The New York Times reports today on ongoing disputes concerning voter fraud.
Traditionally, Republicans have argued that voter fraud is pervasive and that voters are not intimidated when they come to the polls. Democrats argue the opposite, that fraud is not a problem, but voter intimidation is.
The current controversy concerns whether voter fraud has in fact been pervasive recently. A draft of a report commissioned by the Election Assistance Commission stated that it was not, which seems to have not been the conclusion the commission wanted. The final report stated that the evidence was inconclusive. Critics wonder whether the preliminary results were watered down purposefully.
This is ultimately an electoral dispute because more people identify with the Democratic Party than the Republican Party and if they all show up to vote, Democrats win. But since the Democratic coalition includes poorer and minority voters who may not have proper identification, requiring ID suppresses their ability to vote. Fewer voting Democrats, greater Republican success.
Of course we have the right to demand that only legitimate voters be able to vote and the the process be conducted fairly, so a dilemma lies at the heart of this dispute, but I believe it is fair to assume that the overriding concern is victory. As my 2301's remember, similar accusations confronted the Progressives who were accused of cleaning up politics by limiting participation by the poor.
The story points out that this issue underlies attorneygate. The fired attorneys were not aggressively pushing voter fraud cases, which in turn points out the conflict that exists between the political and bureaucratic wings of the executive. The careerists attorneys consider themselves above politics, the White House does not.
