Letter: Show me the voting fraud!

There is sufficient cause to stand up to both real and perceived voter-barrier laws even if those barriers are not that high in the opinion of staff editors. Each and every barrier to protect the integrity of the voting process should not outweigh the collective and individual basic American right to vote.

A state’s right to create and enforce voter and voting standards must be based on the perceived need to protect the integrity of the right and the process to vote, and not on the perceived or real desire to create an advantage for any political party or candidate, where perception, rather than fact, seems to rule or govern. Evidence of voter fraud should require an appropriate measure to avoid such occurrence, but any barrier must be factual and not utilized as the basis for, or as a method of, voter suppression.

So, the issue for me is, show me the fraud! Without a material evidentiary basis for the barrier, there is really no need for a legal barrier standard, which the opinion staff should have addressed before deciding whether the lawful standard is “not that high.” After all, the right to vote is fundamental.

A personal dissenting opinion,

Donald Johnson, judge

19th Judicial District
Baton Rouge

Comments

1) Comment by tradewinns - 14/10/2012

using the liberal's argument used when they are asking for more money for some program "IF IT SAVES ONE PERSON, ISN'T IT WORTH IT?". SO IF IT STOPS ONE PERSON FROM FRAUDULENT VOTING, ISN'T IT WORTH IT? i just moved here from florida (lucky for the liberals i got here in time to register to vote in the upcoming election), if La. allows you to vote at either your precient or at the registrar's office on election day, there is a good chance there is voter fraud. on election day there is no way a person can be stopped from voting at both places. there will of course be id'd as voting twice BUT usually there is nothing done to those who do, with the possible exception of a warning. in duval county fla approximately 35-40 people double vote every election. as they are primarily a minority, the powers that be do NOT want to cause any further racial disharmony. at least that was what the registrar (who was, now deceased, a personal friend of mine) told me directly. he justified it by saying even if they had voted twice for the same candidate and that was the losing candidate, their vote did not alter the final result. i stated that one day it might and then it would be to late to clean it up. don't know what has happened since.

2) Comment by Whatnow - 14/10/2012

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/39-weekly-update-acorn-frankensteins/

3) Comment by Whatnow - 14/10/2012

Why wouldn't anyone want to prove that they are eligible to vote is the question. Everyone has enough time to get an I.D. and if they don't use that time, then stay home. Evidently, if getting and I.D. isn't important enough for them, then neither is voting. If ACORN was so innocent of voter fraud, the government wouldn't have stopped their funding. The evidence was there. The only problem is that now ACORN has split into numerous re-named organizations and allied groups.

4) Comment by Dawson - 13/10/2012

Why should anyone have to prove they are a citizen or a resident to vote? Re-read that question and you will obviously realize why the entire election process is based on the assumption that you have the legal standing to vote. Any person that believes the voting booth should be open to anyone that walks through it regardless of proof of residence is part of the problem. Its ridiculous to think that you can vote without proof of your legal standing to do so.

5) Comment by prbeav - 13/10/2012

In my earlier post, "candidate" should be replaced with "voting candidate" or better still, "registered voter.">>>>Since he does not care to identify registered voters, I wonder if the judge would do away with voter registration.

6) Comment by ScotB - 12/10/2012

The right to vote is reserved for citizens. The state has a compelling interest to insure that right is protected, both in the right of citizens to exercise it and that non-citizens do not. Your disenting opinion noted and overruled!

7) Comment by Springer98 - 12/10/2012

Maybe I'm missing something, but I've been voting in EBR parish for over 40 years & I can't remember even one time that I wasn't asked to present my drivers license as I.D.

8) Comment by prbeav - 12/10/2012

I think establishing qualifications for suffrage is only the first issue we should be concerned about.>>>A more important issue is whether or not the candidate understands the preamble to the US Constitution. I understand its essence is something like "we citizens who trust and commit to these seven goals govern the people of this nation.">>>>My take on the seven goals is: integrity, justice, harmlessness, security, prosperity, liberty, and continuity. My view of the goals changes, perhaps evolves, this writing replacing for the first time "tranquility" with "harmlessness." I can't wait to see my next change.>>>>Most citizens let their art of God substitute for personal duty to fulfill the preamble. They indolently expect political regimes to lead the way to irresponsibility under God.>>>>To label me "atheist" and thereby discount my opinion is wrongful on both issues.

9) Comment by DMJ - 12/10/2012

Republicans have already admitted that the point of voter ID laws is to help Republicans get elected. Disenfranchisement is one of the GOP's best weapons. Everyone remember the voter roll purge in Florida in 2000? Or how the Republican-controlled Supreme Court stopped the recount? That worked out great for everyone, didn't it? We can't let these guys get away with it again.

10) Comment by [e-mail] - 12/10/2012

The good judge should just go and observe for himself; I recently saw a man at early voting that didn't know his correct birthday, it seems there was a conflict with the official record and his non-driving license picture ID. I immediately leaped to the conclusion that as he was a minority he was hungry and underprivileged and so could be excused for his confusion. We both voted, and as I returned to my vehicle I saw this same confused man poring over several different picture ID's clipped to different papers. Where's a judge when you need one?

11) Comment by postscript56 - 12/10/2012

Thank you Judge Johnson for pointing out there must be some"evidentiary basis," else its all paranoia. Let's apply the same concept to other right wing delusions. Show me the wmd's in Iraq. Show me the establishment of Sharia law anywhere in America. Show me how you've lost any of your gun rights or individual freedom to worship. Show me how the government has taken over anything in America. Write down the definition of socialism and show me you even know what socialsim is. I could keep going like this for a (long) while, but you get the point.

12) Comment by Bighug - 12/10/2012

The law should be such that a voter would have difficulty voting more than once in each election. That violation goes against the rights of every legal voter.

13) Comment by unevahno - 12/10/2012

We've seen this voter suppression before, but then it was called by it's original name. Jim Crow.

14) Comment by gvm - 11/10/2012

Are figments of their collective imagination admissible as evidence? If not, then I think you'll be waiting a very long time for valid proof of voter fraud - unless it involves Strategic Allied Consulting (SAC), a paid agent of the GOP..