Sarah Silverman Voter Suppression Fact Check
Sarah Silverman, who apparently has lost some of the fresh edge and youthful look that created the shock-value of her taboo-breaking and vulgar act (she now seems to be gradually fitting into a rather common cliché, the cursing bitter middle aged woman), has a popular video circulating where she mocks and seems to belittle the recent state Voter ID laws while frantically carrying the banner of racial incitement and fear of the “Gestapo-like evil Republicans”.
I select this video as an example of the left’s position on the issue because it is among the best made and catchy; a viewer can reasonably come away from it thinking that she makes a reasonably good argument, albeit with crude annoying attempts at cheap humor. Many people may even be left uncomfortably wondering if the GOP truly simply wishes to disenfranchise voters on racial grounds.
These new set of laws, meant to curb voter fraud, differ in exact detail from state to state, but basically simply require that voters show up at the voting booth with some form of valid photo ID. Every citizen, driver or not, has the right to obtain this required ID, and at no cost. It goes without saying that this is so regardless of race, ethnicity, gender or age.
As with all leftist positions, designed from the ground up to “sell well”, Sarah’s position crumbles to pieces when annoying things called “facts” are introduced; and I am happy to make the introduction.
Right off the bat, she introduces four demographic groups that are the “target” for the evil Republican “Voter Suppression” laws:
The glue so frailly holding up the house of cards that is her (and the left’s) argument is that all these groups lean heavily towards Barak Hussein Obama, and so Republicans wish to restrict their voting. As carefully as these groups were selected (notice “Blacks” instead of simply all ethnic minorities), it falls short of veracity.
The elderly had to be included in the group since they are the only group where one can point to any logic explaining why it may be more difficult for them than the population (citizen) at large to posses a photo ID. Elderly people can indeed be less likely to drive and thus less likely to have driver’s licenses. Of course, there are many other forms of valid photo ID including free state issued ID cards (they look and behave like typical state driver’s license cards without granting the right to drive).
The video implies that only driver’s licences and gun licences are accepted as valid. That is straightforward deceit. ANY state or federal issued photo ID is perfectly valid, which to her apparent outrage includes gun licenses. If she is so concerned with being as INCLUSIVE as possible, would she rather that a state issued photo ID NOT be accepted because it also allows you to carry weapons? It’s an irrelevant, cheap and gratuitous attempt at drawing some people’s dislike for guns.
From passports and Indian Tribe IDs to municipal employee IDs and public assistance IDs among many, all are perfectly valid to vote under the new rules. Obviously, the main IDs that will be used are the ubiquitous driver’s licence and for non-drivers, the state issued non-driving Identification cards.
If you have never heard of them it is because you drive and so have no need to. But people who do not drive, need an ID just as often as everyone else in today’s world, and have heard of them and have them.
The Demographic Lie
However, let us assume for a moment that for some elderly people, having any type of valid ID is in fact more of a problem due to physical restrictions (not being able to get around, etc) and mental/behavioral characteristics.
In that case of course, it is difficult to imagine the elderly person that is able to register to vote (which is rather more complex than one might expect), able to then vote (either by physically going to a voting location or by mail), but somehow does not have and is unable to obtain valid photo ID. In any case, let us assume that this is the case, and take all of that for granted.. well guess what Sarah Silverman and friends…
Mitt Romney currently has a 21 point lead among elderly Voters!
Yes despite the video’s cute little artifice of showing Barak’s picture for each of the named groups, there are few if any demographics that lean more heavily Republican in general, and towards Mitt Romney specifically in this 2012 election. Yes it is true that still mush-filled headed young people and University Professor brainwashed students lean heavily towards Obama, but why the false assumption that the older generation of Americans would as well? Common sense might tell us that just as today’s young are more likely to be left leaning (not that they would know to call themselves that), the older generations may be more likely to be conservative and Republican; in fact they are.
The persistent myth that senior citizens are big liberal Democrats comes from Hollywood and the relentless media bias… Not every American Senior Citizen is a retired Jewish New Yorker in Miami-Dade, Broward or Palm Beach counties! The memory the media continues to perpetuate of disenfranchised senior citizens (all Democrats) in Southern Florida trying to vote for Al Gore but unable to punch through the ballot (the 2000 “Hanging Chad” fiasco) is what they are trying to conjure up here.
The truth is that US senior citizens are more heavily white, Christian, conservative and Republican than their younger counterparts. So… the Republicans want to restrict this right-leaning group from being able to help Romney win the election??
Another group mentioned is also problematic, though less so. The assumption that the “poor” are also overwhelmingly pro-Obama is also not as clear-cut. In 2008, the Democrats had a 12-point lead among families with annual incomes between $30,000 – $75,000 (as PEW reports) which had shrunk to even in September 2011. Today, as Gallup recently reported Romney has a 4-point lead among the same demographic! When looking at families with less than $30,000 annual income (less than state minimum wage for a two income household), Democrats enjoyed a whopping 34 point lead in 2008 which shrank to 22 points by 2011, and today Romney lags in that group by only 15 points.
Before you simply discard this last group as still heavily pro-Obama (15-point lead), note reality as is often the case is more complicated than that. Remember that elections are based on the electoral college, in turn based on winning counties within the states. A great strength of the Republicans (the “Red States”) lies in the rural counties across america. These areas tend to be lower income very often. How could this be?
Well lets look at the Gallup poll again and break down the “poor” by race. Romney leads in the aforementioned lowest income group by 10% among white families, and by a very large 19% lead in the next higher income group. That is a larger lead than he enjoyed among rich whites (14%)! Anyone surprised? Perhaps the leftist rich Hollywood crowd is spoiling the average there for them!
So a large majority of poor whites favor Republicans and Romney, the largest ethnic group in the US remains whites, and so once again the accusation is that Republicans wish to disenfranchise… or should I say, “Voter Suppress” as is the preferred politically correct lingo of the moment, their two strongest demographic supporters, older Americans and the millions of lower income white America…? Interesting.
Not to bog down further in demographic affiliations since that is not the point, but it is sufficed to see that at least two of the four groups here so casually taken for granted as Obama supporters are not so (at least not in such clear-cut fashion). Without getting into more irrelevant hair-splitting, we can grant that a majority of blacks and young people back Barak H Obama.
The Demographic Insult
The question is why these same groups are devoid of, unable to, and incapable of obtaining valid state photo IDs???
Blacks don’t have IDs?? The endless patronizing and infantilizing demeanor Democrats and the left have towards black Americans is hard to contemplate, and harder still to understand is why the black community does not grow tired of it.
Some elderly people may be senile, in very poor health, unable to move about, and/or unable to understand or fulfill the steps required for obtaining an Identification, but so are black people? Students as well apparently…? I am not sure of what good a University education is, if those in the midst of it are incapable of obtaining a simple photo identification.
When students and black people drive, do they do so in a parallel universe without driver’s licences? Those that do not drive, do not have and cannot get State issued IDs just like non driving, non-black, non-student citizens? Black people and students also we are to understand, cannot work and fill out a I-9 form which require not only photo ID but proof of citizenship or legal work status. It would be of interest to know how students enroll in these prestigious (and not prestigious) Universities to begin with without IDs.
So blacks and students also do not posses, besides photo ID of course, bank accounts (which require two forms of identification), jobs nor cars. This besides the endless activities which require photo ID in day-to-day life such as buying alcohol, tobacco, obtaining a prescription drug, or purchasing anything with your credit or bank card.
More accurately perhaps, students not only very well have IDs, but those under 21 often are savvy enough to have impressive fake photo IDs in order to be able to purchase alcohol and tobacco, as is a well documented phenomena in college towns.
Finally, by mentioning poor people, the connotation the socialists wish to invoke no doubt, is that poor people cannot afford cars (and hence don’t have driver’s licences) nor somehow other forms of IDs.
While it is clear enough that not all citizens, poor or not, have cars and don’t have to have driver’s licences, that is not the standard required for photo IDs as was explained above. There are many valid forms of photo ID, and they also exist in a stratified nature, where having one allows you to obtain another (big problem with voter cards). The US Constitution forbids any kind of poll tax and so any kind of cost to voting, no matter how minimal is illegal. Therefore, the states that have enacted ID laws for voting, must also issue FREE IDs that comply with their requirements.
The left no doubt will argue, that there are still costs involved in getting such an ID, like transportation or a postage stamp etc etc. Sure, we do not live in the Garden of Eden, and it is pretty impossible to exist without any expenditure of money and/or calories. Registering to vote and actually voting require just as much if not quite a bit more of both (than obtaining a Free ID). Someone for whom this expense is unaffordable perhaps has more critical issues to deal with than voting, such as not dying on a daily basis.
Common Activities Requiring state issued Photo ID
The same people so whipped up into a frenzy over making sure voters are actually voters by requesting ID, seem to have absolutely no problem with blacks, students, seniors and poor people apparently not having the right to do any of the following:
- Get a job (Strict Federal I-9 form ID requirements)
- Receiving prescription medicine
- Serve on Jury Duty (for the Constitutional right to be judged by a jury of your peers)
- Receive Medical Care
- Apply for a protest or rally permit (Freedom of Assembly and speech)
- Obtain a Passport
- Board a Plane
- Open a Bank Account (by Federal Law requires TWO forms of ID)
- Use a Credit Card or Bank Card.
- Write a Check
- Buy a beer
- Adopt a Pet
- Buy a pack of cigarettes
- Purchase a Gun
- Rent a Car
- Get a business license
- Rent an apartment or house
- Go Fishing
- Go Hunting
- Get a building permit
- Buy certain over the counter medicines
- Get a Sales Tax Exemption for seniors over 80 (ironic that this benefit is meant for the elderly who apparently cannot use it since they don’t have IDs)
- Receive Various Discounts and Benefits for Seniors, Students, Veterans etc
- Register a Vehicle
- Conduct a cash transaction of over $5,000
- Buy a House
- Get a Loan
- Enter most Federal Buildings and many State Buildings (Constitutional right to petition government, and right to access government services.)
Most of the above require a photo ID by law, some of course vary in detail from state to state, and a small minority are just market place requirements and not law (like the cashier asking for photo ID to avoid fraud when a customer is paying with a credit card) , but they are an example of just SOME of the daily activities that require a photo ID. This is why most people believe it is a law for every adult to carry valid identification (since there isn’t much you can do without one) at all times. It is not, but it certainly often appears that way. Even better, those very services that are meant for the poor and supported by the left require photo ID. People, poor, black, elderly or otherwise cannot get any of these without ID:
- Food Stamps
- Student Grants (such as Pell Grants)
- Student Loans (such as Stafford Loans)
- Public Housing Assistance and Rental Assistance (such as Section 8) under the Federal HUD
- SSI (Supplementary Security Income for disabled and low income people)
- Small Business Loans and Grants (such as SBA Loans).
- A myriad of other Federal and State Assistance Programs
So how can the very programs designed for students, the poor and the elderly require the infamous IDs that are now being claimed they cannot get?? There is good reason that these programs require IDs, namely to prevent fraud. Likewise, voting which determines the fate of the entire nation should not be open to fraud.
The Fallacy of Impossible or non Existent Voter Fraud
The video also makes light of “all that voter fraud”. Of course, since voter fraud gives the Democrats more votes, she thinks its a laughing matter. However this idea that voter fraud does not exist is ludicrous, and though to the efforts of the Democrats, we do not know how big a problem it is, it could in fact be massive. In elections that often come down to a few hundred (if not less) votes in certain counties and states, it is a real threat to the integrity of the democratic system.
The same people that want to ban just about every activity on the planet (except marijuana and abortions of course) or at least regulate them under massive government bureaucracies suddenly want no control, no standard, regulation or protections when it comes to such a critical (and infrequent; people don’t vote every day) issue such as voting. Isn’t that a bit strange?
You simply walk in, with absolutely no document on your person of any kind, and vote. You could be anyone and could have voted any number of times, and you are still simply allowed to walk in and out without question. This is their idea of democracy, when for any other human activity they insist upon 25 state and federal agencies to regulate it (if it is allowed to exist at all).
For those who have not voted in the US in a long time or ever (like me), this issue may actually come as a surprise; meaning a surprise that it’s even an issue. We are so used to being asked for ID a dozen times a day in our daily lives that it would even feel odd to simply walk in and vote without presenting any form of identification… how would they know “it’s even me” that voted? Amazingly, prior to the recent photo ID laws that the Democrats are trying to kill, Americans voted by simply walking into the booth, telling the election worker present their name, and voting. They STILL vote the same way in states without these new laws. The potential for fraud is obviously enormous. If the left was not raising such a fuss over the new common sense laws, no one wold even notice they are an issue!
The Federal government (especially under Obama) has a very strange set of priorities. It refuses to stop the flow of illegal aliens across the US’s southern border, refuses to cooperate with state governments in enforcing its own immigration law and in fact threatens, punishes and sues states that try to help it enforce it (currently, the Obama’s administration has sued several states for trying to help catch felon illegal aliens or for requiring photo ID at elections). Along these lines, the federal government refuses to assist states in blocking illegal aliens and non citizens from voting. States have no way of obtaining a person’s legal status in respect to being inside the country, all they can do is ask the USCIS (now part of Homeland Security) which refuses to tell them.
So believe it or not, people in most states (before these new changes) simply register to vote by signing a form in which they declare they are citizens; there is no real check. Once they have registered to vote, they simply walk in to their voting location, state their name (without offering ANY proof) and vote. There could be untold thousands of non citizens registered to vote in many states. Aside from that, regardless of WHO is really registered to vote, on the actual day of elections, ANYONE could walk and vote (and vote many times) since no proof of identity is required.
Without delving in too deeply into the large amount of evidence available, a few examples of the potential fraud will suffice.
- In 2005, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that 3% of the 30,000 individuals called for jury duty from voter registration rolls over a two-year period in just one U.S. district court were not U.S. citizens. Many elections are won and lost by less than 3%.
- In 1994, Mario Aburto Martinez, a Mexican national who killed Mexican presidential candidate Luis Donaldo Colosio, was found to have registered to vote at least twice in California.
- In 1997 a US official was recorded as saying that he would now help the state identify illegal registered voters because he did not:
want to open a Pandora’s Box…. If word got out that this is a substantial problem, it could tie up all sorts of manpower. There might be a few thousand [illegal voters] in Dallas, for example, but there could be tens of thousands in places like New York, Chicago or Miami
- Florida is currently trying to clean its rosters of registered voters who are legally illegible to vote, most of them by virtue of being non citizens. This effort is being hampered by constant federal lawsuits against it, and complete lack of federal cooperation.Thus far, Florida found that 180,000 registered voters may not be citizens! Remember that in 2000, the presidency of the United States was decided by less than 500 votes in Florida.
- Citizens in Arizona passed proposition 200 in the year 2000, requiring voters to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote (not at the voting booth). Of course, this law has been struck down and is tied up in litigation by the Federal Government. In the short period that it was in effect (1 to 2 years), 31,000 voter registrations were denied due to lack of valid proof of citizenship!
Is there an incentive for illegal aliens to register to vote? Most definitely, besides a purely political one, obtaining a voter registration card in most states though very simple for a non citizen, allows you to in turn obtain other valid forms of ID. Since only citizens are allowed to vote, in many situations a voter registration card itself is taken as proof of citizenship!
Given all this, any controversy at all requiring the new state laws that wish to prevent all this fraud is hard to comprehend.
All the new laws require is that you present some form of photo ID when you vote so that the officials can make sure that it is indeed you who you is voting in your name, that no one votes more than once, and perhaps most importantly that non citizens do not vote. Few things could be of more straightforward or less controversial.
What is their Problem then?
What is really behind the Democrat’s motivation to strike down these simple voter ID requirements? Ironically, they are simply guilty of what they accuse… a case of playing politics. They realize that these laws will reduce their total votes, that simple. Because unlike their inaccurate blanket declarations that blacks, seniors, the poor and students all back Obama, the group that the Voter Photo ID laws does aim to stop from voting truly IS heavily Democrat: Illegal Aliens.
There is no conspiracy, this is as simple as it sounds. Illegal aliens will have a much harder time voting when identification standards are actually required. Illegal aliens, by virtue of being mostly Hispanic (which are in the US heavily left-leaning), and furthermore by virtue of being illegal aliens tend to vote Democratic. The Democratic party makes no secret of their wish to grant them amnesty and/or citizenship while the Republican party does not. If illegal aliens wish to keep the border open, stop deportations and keep welfare and other federal and state services open to them, it is in their interest to vote Democrat. If they wish a strong US with security and jobs so that they still have a desire to remain in it, they have an interest to vote Republican, but that requires much more vision.
Aside from illegal aliens, there are legal residents, tourists, and foreign workers (with Visas) among others who also lean to the left and also should not vote according to the law but easily can do so in states without identification standards. A potentially huge issue is also the federal nature of the US. There are 50 states and millions of Americans who live very close to state lines. States have no form of border protection from each other at all. Americans can move freely between them, and the absence of ID requirements allow citizens from one district, country or state to easily vote and influence those of another. It is shocking that a country so firmly based on local sovereignty and without any physical borders between these sovereignties would not require voter identification.
Finally, the most sinister of all the incentives for the Democrats is outright voter fraud where one individual votes multiple times by various illegitimate methods. The recent cases of this activity caught by investigative reporters and the authorities, are also cases of Democrat voter fraud (like the cases backed by ACORN). The reason for this is because they tend to also involve illegal immigrant populations and progressive leftist non-profit organizations.
Some Facts to Illustrate the Inescapable Truth.
Let us for a moment ignore everything we explained above, and accept for a moment the Democrats are really interested in increasing voter access, and worried ID requirements will actually decrease the number of eligible citizens voting, and NOT decrease the number of illegal votes.
For this fantastical case, let us also pretend and completely ignore the fact that there are many forms of Identification that the new state laws accept. Below is a typical set of requirements (they vary a bit from state to state) from the recent Kansas law. A voter may bring ANY one of the following:
- A driver’s license issued by Kansas, or by another state or district of the U.S.;
- A state ID card issued by Kansas, or by another state or district of the U.S.;
- A concealed carry of handgun license issued by Kansas, or a concealed carry of handgun or weapon license issued by another state or district of the U.S.;
- A U.S. passport;
- An employee badge or ID document issued by a municipal, county, state, or federal government office or agency;
- A military ID issued by the U.S.;
- A student ID card issued by an accredited postsecondary institution of education in the state of Kansas; or
- A public assistance ID card issued by a municipal, county, state, or federal government office or agency; or
- An ID card issued by an Indian tribe.
Quite a variety isn’t it? Notice both student ID cards and military ID are perfectly acceptable despite Sarah Silverman’s tricky insinuation they are not accepted (she played around with words and address problems… obviously if you have a US military ID and are a citizen of California, it doesn’t mean you can vote in a Kansas election). But that is not all, for any who may still be concerned there are exceptions in addition to the above:
- People over 65 may use expired documentation.
- Persons with permanent physical disability that makes it impossible for them to travel to obtain an ID and have qualified for permanent advance voting status;
- Members if uniformed service on active duty who, by reason of such duty, are out of the country on election day or spouse or dependent who by reason of the service member are also out of the country;
- Members of the merchant marine who, by reason of service, are out of the country on election day or spouse or dependent who by reason of the service member are also out of the country;
- Voters whose religious beliefs prohibit photo ID (such persons must submit declaration concerning such beliefs to secretary of state).
In any event, again let us ignore the existence of all these options and exemptions and let us pretend that ONLY Driver’s Licences are a possibility under the new “Draconian” state laws.
In 2010 the Department of Transportation reported that there were 210 million licensed drivers.
It is important to note that not all those people are eligible to vote for various reasons, some are Green Card holders, some are felons, and some are under 18 (a small group of fully licensed drivers between 16 and 18). The vast majority however, are eligible to vote.
The same year, the infamous US Census reported that there was 210 million citizens age 18 and up in the US, out of a total population of 234.5 million people of the same age. This includes all residents, including ILLEGALS.
If you recall, Sarah Silverman mentions that there are 21 million Americans without Driver’s Licences (and falsely implies they simply cannot vote under the new rules). Well, if we take the 234.5 million figure for total US population and subtract the 210 million licensed drivers, we are left with 19 million.So sure, let’s add a couple for good measure and we can grant her the 21 million “Americans without driver’s licences”. Besides that as was thoroughly explained, those without driver’s licences can still vote, it is misleading to imply all 234.5 million should vote. That is precisely the problem… the Democrats WOULD LIKE all 234.5 million to vote, including the illegal aliens and non-citizen permanent residents. A clear violation of the law.
Remember that both among the 210 million drivers and among the 234.5 million total persons 18 and over in the US, there are people not eligible to vote.
- A rough approximation is that there are 201 million drivers eligible to vote. That is by subtracting 9.5 million Green Card Holders 18 and older from the 210 million total.
- The US Census Bureau also reported that there were 210.8 (and about 207 eligible to vote) million US citizens 18 and older among the the 234.5 million total. That leaves 23.76 million non citizens age 18 and over + approximately 3 million citizens not legally eligible (felons, mental disabilities etc).
So we have 207 million US Citizens who legally have the right to vote, and 210 million Americans with Driver Licences! If everyone with a driver licence walked into a booth and voted (if that was all that was required), the voter turnout would appear to be 101.5%!!!!
If only the 201 million drivers that should legally vote showed up, then the turnout would be ONLY 97%! Yes definitely requiring photo ID sounds shockingly repressive…
In 2010, there were 12.65 million Green Card holders in the US, and about the same number of illegal aliens (obviously that number is not known very precisely). If typical ratios are used to approximate the 18 and older population in those groups, they are about 9-11 million in each.
Let us see how many Americans were registered to vote in 2010: Only 137.36 million. There is nearly 75 million more Americans with driver’s licences than there are Americans registered to vote! It looks like the burden of registration is much heavier than simply having an ID. Imagine, how many additional Americans have a different form of photo ID; virtually ALL of them have one or the other, especially citizens eligible to vote.
In 2008, without the new state ID laws, only 132 million Americans voted (including all the fraud). As many readers probably know from personal experience, voting in on election day is often hampered by the fact one realizes he has not registered in time. Voter registration, though it requires no proof of citizenship (previously) is a pretty annoying process that has to be planned for and accomplished in advance in order to vote.
This is why there are so many more Americans with driver’s licences than there are registered voters. Depending on the state, there are quite a few requirements for registration. Some states even demand that you swear a loyalty to the State in order to register to vote. Why are the Democrats not complaining about that?
In fact, federal law (42 U.S.C. § 15483) requires that Voters who register provide proof of identification. Proof of identification includes a copy of:
- A current and valid photo identification, or
- A current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck or government document that shows your name and address.
Federal HAVA also imposes a photo identification requirement for first-time voters. Many states, including California, have interpreted this provision to apply only to registration forms received through the U.S. mail, so the requirement is easily avoided by turning in the registration form directly to election officials. The point is that illegals can still get around it (due to the lax state interpretation) but it is still a somewhat cumbersome process for legitimate voters.
So if Federal Law itself requires identification and photo ID in many cases to register to vote (though it is not enforced by the states as such), why is it trying so desperately to stop through the courts any attempt for a State to ask for an ID at voting? What is the point of registering to vote if no one can verify it is you at the voting booth who registered to begin with?
If illegals can easily register to vote anyways, and some can get valid photo IDs as well, what is the hysteric fear of voting booths requiring ID? Perhaps the Democrats are aware of way more fraud than we even can suspect.
In essence this is a battle to get the roughly 26 million 18 and older people residing in the US who are not eligible to vote to do just that (since they overwhelmingly support Democrats). In recent elections, with the margins of victory so close (at the time of writing, polls show Obama and Romney in a dead heat) that makes a massive difference. When considering local and state elections, in many places this undocumented vote is overwhelmingly powerful. This is without mentioning the fact that not requiring any documentation at the time of voting, allows for even more people UNDER 18 to vote (if they are illegal and no one is requiring an ID, why should our statistics even limit ourselves to those at least 18 years of age) AND voter fraud involving “fake” people voting or individuals voting multiple times.
It is amazing, and scary to think that Democrats are so afraid of simply trying to clamp down on voter fraud and that they are willing to resort to hysteric racial divisions and fear mongering in order to avoid it. What are they hiding? Given all of this, people should be urging the rest of the states that have not enacted ID voting laws to do so instead of crying foul over those that did.
In an attempt to be thorough, let me briefly address the clip she sinisterly plays of GOP House Majority Leader Mike Turzai saying “Voter ID” will “allow Mit Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania”. Again, the half-truths and deceitful manipulation of context continues by Sarah and the Democrats: She again implies without saying it that Turzai believes that the Romney will win PA because blacks, students and the poor will not be able to vote, as if his statements were following her remarks. Absurd. If the Republicans think that Voter ID laws will prevent voter fraud by illegal aliens and others that favor Democrats (as was tirelessly explained throughout this paper), then what is unusual about Turzai’s remarks?
Pennsylvania is a very close “battleground state” in this upcoming election. Turzai believes that if only citizens vote, (yes including blacks, poor etc), Romney can narrowly win the state, but if fraudulent votes by non citizens are included, he may very well lose Pennsylvania (and hence the White House). What is wrong with that statement? A “chill pill” is in order here. If there was no fraud going on at all, then it would make no difference in the election and no one would care one way or the other if ID was required.
The fact is that it DOES make a difference, and that it is not made up of full-fledged eligible citizens who have neither driver license’s nor any other form of photo ID, are unable to acquire any but are nevertheless registered voters who wish to vote (a group that is virtually non-existent); but rather it is made up of millions of illegal aliens who wish to see the Democrats win the election, and that is a group that is definitely very existent.
Some More Pesky Final “Facts” (sorry Sarah)
The percent of 18 and older US citizens with driver’s licences nationwide is approximately between 94%-97% The remaining small group have or have easy access to other forms of photo ID.
However, the percent of licensed drivers compared to the total population (counting non citizens) tells a different story, especially when border states with many illegals are concerned. The percentage nationwide of the population (18+) that is licensed is 88%.
In California, the same statistic lies at 84% and in Texas at 81%. In Nebraska for example (a state with few illegal aliens), the same statistic is 99.3%!
Border states have larger segments of the population without photo ID due to the presence of illegal aliens. In essence we see that the percent of licensed drivers from among the eligible to vote citizen population age 18 and over is virtually 100%! That is ONLY counting driver’s licences and excluding all the various other forms of photo ID available to real citizens. Tell us if you will… what VOTER SUPPRESSION are the commies talking about??
They are talking about quite the opposite, VOTER INFUSION – by illegals, non-citizen residents and outright fraud. With all of that, they wish squeeze out a victory and continue to take the US down a disastrous path.