A perfect time to oppose efforts to protect against voter fraud

What is the extent of voter fraud in the United States?  I sure don't know.  But I find the war between the opposing sides fascinating.

Robyn "Blumñata" Blumner, hard left editorialist for the Tampa Bay Times, enters the fray with "Odd time to purge voter rolls."  Because one wouldn't want to have the purest voter roll just before an important election, right?  Rather, you want to purify the rolls immediately after a big election.  Or at least at some point far enough away from the election so the purge has time to unpurge.

So much for the silly title and on to the silly content.

Our jumping off point is the new Florida effort to purge voter rolls of non-citizens.  Up, up and away:

The process raises uncomfortable comparisons to the Jeb Bush-era error-ridden felon list. That purge list was used to prevent thousands of legitimate voters from casting ballots in the 2000 presidential election — an election decided by 537 votes.

The list prevented thousands of legitimate voters from casting ballots in 2000?   That's news to me.

 Fact check time.

The executive summary of an investigation of the 2000 election by the couU.S. Commission on Civil Rights was apparently not the source of Blumner's claim.  One would think that the direct disenfranchisement of thousands of legitimate voters would serve as exhibit A in such a report, presuming the Commission detected the problem, though an early draft of the report obtained by the Washington Post included the following:

Perhaps the most dramatic undercount in this election was the nonexistent ballots of the countless unknown eligible voters, who were wrongfully purged from the voter registration rolls, turned away from the polls, and by various other means prevented from exercising the franchise. While statistical data, reinforced by credible anecdotal evidence, point to widespread disenfranchisement and denial of voting rights, it is impossible to determine the extent of the disenfranchisement or to provide an adequate remedy to the persons whose voices were silenced in this historic election by a pattern and practice of injustice, ineptitude and inefficiency.

"Countless," so it might have been in the billions.  Though more likely the vague "countless" means they don't have any idea how many.  Several people turned up at the hearings to claim such disenfranchisement.  Assuming their stories are true the number is at least greater than zero.

Hunting in the USCCR data for confirmation of the disenfranchised thousands Blumner alleges turned up nothing.  Agenda journalist Greg Palast named no such number of lost votes.  Lost potential votes, yes--but Blumner uses no such qualifying language.

Don't buy Blumner's number unless it comes with reliable backing.  And good luck ever finding any.

More from Blumñata:

Detzner claims that 180,000 registered Florida voters may not be citizens after their names and other data were "matched" to foreign nationals in an outdated state motorist database. These voters could easily have been naturalized in the years since obtaining or renewing a driver's license or state I.D.

Obviously if the members of the set of 180,000 naturalized at some point then they count as citizens.  However, if they didn't naturalize then they don't count as citizens and it remains true that "180,000 registered voters may not be citizens" until some determination takes place.  Blumner's gratuitously playing up the obvious and admitted lack of certainty regarding the number among the 180,000 who qualify as citizens.

(click image for larger view)

 Blumñata:

Already some of the 2,700 noncitizens on the verified purge list are proving to be citizens. Which leads to the question of whether this is a pure effort to clean up the voter rolls or is there an element of suppressing minority votes?

Fact check.

What is the "verified purge list"?  Supposedly a list from the state that includes only confirmed non-citizens?

Blumner's own paper gives us the answer:

As a result, some citizens could appear to be non-citizens now because the DHSMV computer system doesn't automatically update when someone becomes a citizen, said Chris Cate, a spokesman with the Florida Division of Elections.

"We're not just looking at the matches from highway safety," Cate said. "We're doing a secondary assessment here before we send the names to supervisors of elections. You have to consider that a person's last contact with highway safety can be more than four years ago. Someone could have become a citizen in that time. So you can't presume someone's not an eligible voter."

Is Blumner trying to mislead readers or what?  The state knows that legitimate voters could occur on the list.  That's exactly why they send the list to local election workers. The local workers are charged with trying to verify citizenship.  The best time to do that is in advance of a coming election while allowing enough time to correct as many individual snags as possible.

Blumner:

Monroe County Supervisor of Elections Harry Sawyer, a Republican who is a straight shooter on election matters, says that some of the records Detzner is using are too old to be reliable. Without a confirmation on citizenship one way or another from the voter, Sawyer says, he won't automatically drop anyone off the rolls. But not every local elections supervisor will be this careful.

> Likely de-obfuscation of Blumner's paraphrasing:   Sawyer's stating the obvious again that persons with older driver's licenses are more likely to have achieved citizenship in the interim.   Presenting the same information twice doubles the amount of evidence.  De-obfuscation No. 2:  Sawyer's not acting to remove people from the rolls until he receives confirmation because he's limited from acting because of federal restrictions on his and four other Florida counties.  The information again comes from Blumner's own paper.  And she forgets to mention this?

Blumner:

Florida's noncitizen purge follows those in Colorado and New Mexico. Funny that this is being done by immigrant-heavy swing states with Republican secretaries of state. Both Colorado and New Mexico made a media splash with dire claims that noncitizens were registered and likely voting in large numbers. But a closer look by the nonprofit Brennan Center for Justice found that those states had drawn indefensible conclusions about noncitizen voting and had refused to release evidence that backed up their claims. The allegations of voter fraud, the center suggests, were smoke and mirrors and couldn't be trusted.

Members of the Democratic Party should feel outrage at Blumner's implication that Democrat secretaries of state would resist making it more difficult for non-citizens--who tend to vote Democrat--to vote.

The Brennan Center for Justice evaluation, by the way, has a little hypocrisy problem:

A careful review of the reports and information released (they have not released the complete set of data and methodology used to arrive at their conclusions) shows some serious problems with the methods used based upon the information they did disclose resulting in questionable conclusions.

A definitive finding of "serious problems" depends on a full evaluation of the methodology, at least in a case like this.  None of the supposed problems lacks for a potential solution.  So the evaluation suffers a problem similar to that of which it accuses Colorado and New Mexico.

It should come as no big surprise.  The evaluation was written by Senior Counsel in the Brennan Center's Democracy Program, Keesha Gaskins.  Lawyers too often don't care about the legitimacy of their arguments.  They're often swayed by the desire to convince the audience by any means, including by the use of a host of formal and informal fallacies.  Not that we should dismiss Gaskins' arguments because of that lawyerly tendency.  Each argument stands or falls on its own.

Case in point (Blumner's a former lawyer):

The same can be said for all the dead people voting in South Carolina. That state's attorney general, Republican Alan Wilson, claimed recently that more than 900 votes had been cast by dead people. But after the South Carolina Election Commission looked into the claim, it didn't hold up. There was no evidence that anyone had fraudulently voted in the name of someone dead.

Apparently a confession from the illegal voter is a necessary proof.

Seriously, an investigation of the 207 potential votes by dead people ended up ruling out voter fraud, on reasonable grounds, in all but 10 cases.  In lawyer world that's "no evidence that anyone had fraudulently voted in the name of someone dead."  The investigation did not encompass another 696 suspicious votes from earlier elections.  See what I mean about lawyers?  No evidence isn't the same as no proof.

This is part of a pattern. Republicans actively gin up voter fraud claims to justify turning voting into an obstacle course to dissuade Democratic-leaning constituencies.

Blumner's hilarious.  News reports indicate that the information about potential votes by dead people was uncovered after South Carolina started implementing a voter ID law.  Some pattern.

Illegally registered voters + mainstream journalism = buried lede

Most of the Reuters story deals with a potential 180,000 voters on the rolls who are not legal residents.  The last line of the story is perhaps the most interesting:

Cate said some Florida officials have asked the Obama administration to grant the state access to databases maintained by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to help determine who is a citizen.

"We've been requesting access, but have so far been denied," he said.

I can imagine legitimate reasons that Homeland Security would not share this information.

If the actual reason is that correlating voter registration rolls with databases showing legal residence is "racist" then I don't count that as a legitimate reason.

Props to the press for even running the story, but we need more information on that caboose of a lede.

Grading PolitiFact (Florida): the ACLU, sharks and voter fraud (Updated)

Something about this one made me think of the old joke about the lawyer forced to swim through shark-infested waters.  PolitiFact Florida impressively confirms one premise of an argument while failing to note that the argument is fallaciously equivocal.  Indeed, the ACLU spokesman only utters the words.  PolitiFact provides the equivocal definitions.

Another great moment in the history of journalism.


The issue:

(clipped from PolitiFact.com)

The fact checkers:

Katie Sanders:  writer, researcher
Angie Drobnic Holan:  editor


Analysis:

Is voter fraud a problem?

That's the central and underlying issue in this fact check, which stems from a case in Florida where a schoolteacher ran afoul of the law by not properly following new legislation spearheaded by Florida's Republican-dominated legislature.

The Colbert Report produced a non-serious treatment of the issue.  An ACLU spokesperson contributed in kind.

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

The video commits any number of distortions of the issue, but we'll focus on just one. 

PolitiFact:

One of the people Colbert interviewed for his sarcastic report is Howard Simon, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida. Florida officials claimed they needed to pass the law to prevent voter fraud, but these cases are actually pretty rare, he said.

"There are probably a larger number of shark attacks in Florida than there are cases of voter fraud," he said.

Simon says there are probably more shark attacks in Florida than cases of voter fraud.  His statement is intended to minimize the problem of voter fraud, using the perception that few shark attacks occur in Florida to power his point.  Take a guess at how many shark attacks occurred in Florida last year before encountering the stats.

Simon doesn't merely rely on the potential for inaccurate perceptions about the rate of shark attack.  Better than that, he says shark attacks "probably" outnumber the number of cases of voter fraud.

What is a "case" of voter fraud?

The relevant understanding of "case" in this context is an instance or occurrence.  A case of mistaken identity, for example, is any instance of mistaken identity.

That understanding is not for PolitiFact, however.  PolitiFact takes "cases" and interprets it, at least in the practical sense, as the number of state investigations for voter fraud.  A "case" in this fact check is a  "case" in the sense of a designation by a state agency.

Does that equivocal drift in definitions affect the outcome of the fact check?  Almost certainly.

PolitiFact (bold emphasis added):

The shark attack figures include documented instances of sharks attacking human victims. The voter fraud cases indicate the number of cases deemed legally sufficient for an investigation by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

Summing up the table PolitiFact provides, shark attacks outnumber the "cases" of voter fraud 72-49 over the past four years.  For only one of those years (2011) did the number of shark attacks fall short of the number of "cases" of voter fraud.

The fallacy in PolitiFact's reasoning comes easily to light.

For most of Florida's history as part of the United States it has prohibited voting by felons.  Every time a felon votes illegally, it constitutes a case of voter fraud--albeit not the phony representation of "case" settled on by the fact checkers.

Most often nothing can be done to prosecute a case of voter fraud against a felon who votes illegally even though it happens with some regularity.  The Miami Herald, for example, reported the following in the wake of its investigations of the 2000 presidential election:

At least 445 Florida felons voted illegally on Nov. 7, casting another cloud over a disputed presidential election already mired in legal challenges, a Herald investigation has found.

The tainted votes -- found in a review of nearly half a million votes cast in 12 Florida counties -- provide evidence that the presidential race was influenced by thousands of ineligible voters. Nearly six million voters in Florida's 67 counties cast ballots.

Got that?  The Herald found evidence that thousands of ineligible votes were cast in just one election.  But let's treat the numbers conservatively.  The Herald says at least 445 felons voted illegally--fraudulently--in Florida.  Add that 445 to the 49 "cases" of voter fraud listed on PolitiFact's chart and we end with a total of 494 cases of voter fraud.  The total documented number of shark attacks in Florida is 637 over its entire history as recorded by the Florida Museum of Natural History.

Who thinks felons failed to vote illegally at least enough to make up the remaining 143 vote difference?

Obviously the number of cases of voter fraud in the relevant sense are more than enough to outpace the number of shark attacks.  It is likely that ideology accounts for PolitiFact's eventual "Mostly True" ruling--not the facts.

The ACLU’s claim is true on its face, but we’re knocking it down a peg with consideration of a few things. One, the state’s count doesn’t represent a complete set of possible fraud being prosecuted in the state. Two, a "case" does not always include just one instance of fraud.

Three, the stat count artificially limits the number of cases of voter fraud in Florida by ignoring a number of sources of fraudulent votes.  Thus the ACLU's claim is not true on its face.  In addition, the ACLU argument misses the point that Republicans try to make in supporting strengthening of voter identification laws:  The law as it stands provides few tools to identify cases of voter fraud.  Nobody knows the full extent of voter fraud because of that lack.

About all we really know is that the cases of voter fraud are overpoweringly likely to outnumber the documented cases of shark attack.

Too bad we can't rely on PolitiFact to make the easy determination.

The grades:

Katie Sanders:  F
Angie Drobnic Holan:  F

This item receives the tag "journalists reporting badly."


Afters:

PolitiFact could have used this fact check to educate readers about the difficulty of uncovering voter fraud.  Instead, it trivialized the issue to almost the degree achieved by the Colbert Report.

A few select comments from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement's 1998 report "Florida Voter Fraud Issues":

FDLE's experience in recent years, including cases predating the 1993 and 1994 " Motor Voter" changes, suggests the areas that are "ripe" for potential fraud fall primarily into these categories:

• Voter Registration Fraud: — Minimal identification and citizenship proof requirements provide ample opportunity for voter registration fraud. This includes specialized "changes of address" done solely to allow a vote in a particular election, when in fact, no actual change of address has occurred.

• Absentee Ballot Fraud: — The desire to facilitate the opportunity for each person to vote has resulted in increased opportunity to use absentee ballots improperly. (Once one has registered fraudulently, he or she can obtain an absentee ballot for every election thereafter if he or she wishes. The lack of "in-person, at-the-polls" accountability makes absentee ballots the "tool of choice" for those inclined to commit voter fraud.)

• Illegally or Improperly "Assisting" Others To Vote Their Absentee Ballot: — Those inclined to do so can capitalize on others' access to an absentee ballot by voting their ballot for them, often with the actual voter not knowing what has occurred. This offers tremendous opportunity for vote fraud, particularly to those who have access to the ill or infirm or those who do not have the ability to resist the influence of another as they are urged to vote in a "required" manner. It also encourages those inclined to commit voter fraud to seek to utilize absentee ballots provided to those whose interest in voting is marginal or non-existent.

• Vote-Buying: — Securing votes by payment or other "rewards" or the "selling of one's vote" — is an age-old problem that still exists.

Once registered to vote, any person may request and utilize an absentee ballot without ever having to appear in person to vote. If the voter registration process does not require significant proof of citizenship, address, and identity, then those inclined to commit fraud will capitalize on the process by successfully registering those who have no right to vote, and then "facilitate" their (illegal) vote by absentee ballot.

To re-emphasize the key issue, these vulnerabilities in the voting system remain very easy to exploit and very difficult to detect once they occur.  Assuming that the number of cases deemed worthy of investigation by the Florida Department of State adequately represents the number of cases of actual voter fraud ranks as epic on the scale of folly (aka the Folly-O-Meter).


Update April 6, 2012:

A Florida television station airs a story documenting approximately 100 non-citizens registered to vote in Florida, at least some of whom voted in past elections. 





March 4, 2012:  Replaced "explain" with "exploit" in the final paragraph.

Grading PolitiFact (Florida): Alan Hays, proof of citizenship and voting

Words matter -- We pay close attention to the specific wording of a claim. Is it a precise statement? Does it contain mitigating words or phrases?
--Principles of PolitiFact and the Truth-O-Meter

If anything about an anecdote can strongly suggest an ideological bias, it is the complete ease with which PolitiFact can ignore its supposed principles.


The issue:

(clipped from PolitiFact.com)

The fact checkers:

Amy Sherman:  writer, researcher
Aaron Sharockman:  editor


Analysis:

Words matter.  Here are the words Alan Hays used during the committee meeting, via the PolitiFact story (bold emphasis added):

"Before we design a district anywhere in the state of Florida for Hispanic voters, we need to ascertain that they are citizens of the United States. We all know there are many Hispanic speaking people in Florida that are not legal, and I just don't think that it's right that we try to draw a district that encompasses people that really have no business voting anyhow. If we know registered voters are people who have proven their citizenship then that's a completely different story, but I'm not aware of any proof of citizenship necessary before you register to vote."

Hays says he isn't aware of any proof of citizenship necessary in Florida, before one can register to vote.

Watch the PolitiFact twist:

Hays said you don't need to prove that you're a citizen in order to cast a ballot.

Words matter?

If words matter then we should expect PolitiFact to note the difference between saying one does not know of a requirement and saying that no requirement exists.  If PolitiFact subjected its own claim to the "Truth-O-Meter"--and the thing actually worked like it's supposed to--I don't see how it could rate higher than "Mostly False."

It seems that words matter at PolitiFact's discretion.  That is, according to subjective criteria.

Fact checking a dubious paraphrase rather than the subject's actual words already constitutes justification for failing grades, but even apart from this blunder the fact check takes an astonishingly errant course.

Is it necessary to prove citizenship in order to register to vote in Florida?

PolitiFact takes up the question by initially examining the motor voter registration system, perhaps reasoning that the emphasis is appropriate given the popularity of that mode of registration:

Floridians can register to vote a variety of ways -- but the most common registration method is at driver's license offices. In 2010, more than 270,000 people registered to vote at driver's license offices. The second-most common method was what the state division of elections calls the "other" category, which includes registering in person at supervisors of elections offices.

Motor voter registration apparently does require proof of citizenship:

In Florida when drivers apply for a driver's license, they must provide proof that they are in the country legally. U.S. citizens could show a passport or a proper birth certificate to verify their citizenship. Immigrants who are not U.S. citizens would have to provide the proper visa.

But for non-citizens who wish to vote, the motor voter identification requirements represent no real barrier:

But what if someone walks into a supervisor of elections office and asks to register to vote?

In those cases, people registering to vote must sign an oath on a registration application attesting that they are qualified to vote and that all the information on the application is true. (Usually at driver's licenses offices applicants who want to apply to register to vote don't have to sign that particular form since the office already has their signature as part of the driver's license application process.)

The application includes a question: Are you a citizen of the United States? If you answer no, the form says "you cannot register to vote."

We asked state Division of Elections spokesman Chris Cate if the state does anything to verify citizenship.

"The answer is no," he said. "The law doesn't require someone to provide proof of citizenship when they register. If they swear, attest and sign under oath that their information is accurate and that they are a citizen we will accept their voter registration."

Voter registration through an elections office, then, basically utilizes the honor system.  If you say you're a citizen then you can register to vote regardless of whether you couldn't provide proof of citizenship when you received your driver's license.

Game over?  It may look like it, but the story continues with a description of the torments waiting in Hell (felony charges, anyway) for non-citizens who lie on their registration form.

It isn't relevant.  Whether or not the state metes out punishments to those it isn't even seeking who have improperly registered, they're allowed to register without proving citizenship.

Then there's this puzzling statement from PolitiFact:

Individual supervisors of elections do have the ability to determine if an applicant is an U.S. citizen, Cate said, though it would be difficult for a supervisor to ascertain citizenship.

Huh?  I'd like to see that unpacked.  Supervisors of elections have the authority to verify citizenship but verifying citizenship is difficult?  That's my best guess at translating the meaning.  And it isn't very reassuring in that form.

But PolitiFact still isn't finished.

It turns out that election experts Ion Sancho (FEC filings here) and Emogene Stegall say there's no problem with non-citizens voting:

Sancho said the idea that illegal residents are voting is "laughable it's so wrong."

"We are not seeing any problem with illegal citizens voting in the U.S. anywhere, not just in Tallahassee or Florida. It's a canard that illegal individuals are registering and voting. ... Voting requires putting your name and address on an official document and that is not something undocumented individuals tend to do."

The local elections supervisor in Hays' own district, Lake County, sees it the same way.

"We've never had a problem with illegal voting in Lake County, no way,'' said Emogene W. Stegall, who has served in the county's election's office for 40 years.

PolitiFact interviews "impartial experts."  Or Democrats.  Apparently either will do.

Opinions from Sancho and Stegall are not necessarily wrong simply because they are liberals.  Simply observe that their opinions are accompanied by the very thinnest of evidences, the best of it being Sancho's claim that undocumented individuals tend not to put names and addresses on official documents.

Seriously, what's the harm in putting a name and address on voter registration if elections supervisors do not attempt to verify citizenship?  Do these two have any data in support of their expert opinions?

What does the Truth-O-Meter conclude?

Our ruling

Sen. Hays said that Florida doesn't require "any proof of citizenship necessary before you register to vote." There is a kernel of truth here: According to the state Division of Elections, state law doesn't require new voter applicants to prove their citizenship in some physical sense. They simply must sign a sworn statement attesting that they meet the voting requirements -- including being a citizen.

Again setting aside the, ah, liberal interpretation of Hays' statement, why is there simply a "kernel of truth" to the proposition that it isn't necessary to prove citizenship in order to register to vote in Florida?  PolitiFact subsequently mentions caveats, so let's look there for our answer:

First, willfully lying on a voter registration form about your citizenship status can lead to a felony conviction.

Failing to bring your vehicle to a complete stop at a stop sign can lead to a traffic citation.  Enforcement is really the key, isn't it?  The state admits that it has no active enforcement mechanism attached to the voter registration system other than the easily circumvented identification requirements associated with the motor voter program.

Second, the most common way to register to vote in Florida is during the process of obtaining a driver's license -- in 2010, 57 percent of those who registered to vote in Florida chose that method. And during that process, people are asked to verify their citizenship.

Is this a joke?

If registration through the driver's license program isn't a necessary requirement to register to vote then the identify checks associated with that program are not required in order to register to vote.  It's basic logic.  And it is already admitted that one can go straight from the driver's license office to the supervisor of elections and register on the honor system.

Lastly, we have to consider the experiences of two actual supervisor of elections, who said there is no widespread problem of illegal immigrants registering to vote.

We have no evidence that either of the helpful liberal supervisors of elections base their claims on empirical data.

For those reasons, we rate this claim Mostly False.

 Those were rationalizations, not reasons.

The fact check attributed a claim to Hays that Hays did not make and then used a ridiculous set of excuses to obscure the truth of the made-up claim.

I'm sputtering trying to think of condemnatory language equal to the task of lambasting PolitiFact over this fact check.


The grades

Amy Sherman:  F
Aaron Sharockman:  F

Both members of the team could have earned failing grades simply for making up the claim attributed to Hays.  But this duo when beyond the pale by ignoring clear evidence that the claim they graded "Mostly False" was essentially true.

We have yet another instance of a PolitiFact team earning the label "journalists reporting badly."

ID check for voting--why not?

I looked at a blog post by Michelle Malkin today, referring to a party-line vote on a voter ID law.

Malkin posted the vote breakdown, and not a single Democrat voted in favor of requiring a voter ID. I surmised there must be some principled (or supposedly principled) objection to such a law.

So what is it? I think this piece in Slate (by Richard L. Hasen) probably sums it up:

Republicans defend voter-identification laws as necessary to combat voter fraud. But Democrats and civil rights organizations see these laws as a way of gaining partisan advantage—because it's the poor who will have a more difficult time securing voter identification. Poor people tend to drive less (meaning they won't have a driver's license, which is the most common form of ID), and they may not have the money to secure certified copies of documents, such as the birth certificates necessary to obtain a state-issued voter identification. The poor also happen to be more likely to vote Democratic.
(Slate)

There's at least a kernel of a reasonable argument, there. Requiring voter ID might cause some potentially legitimate voters some difficulty in casting their votes. And it is reasonable to weigh the potential benefits of the law against that potential drawback.
The Slate story takes a stab at doing just that.

More important, it's not clear what the nonpartisan object of this exercise would be. Beyond a few isolated instances and anecdotes, there is precious little evidence of the kind of voter fraud a state voter ID card requirement would deter. I am aware of no studies finding evidence of any kind of systematic or serious problems with voters casting ballots in someone else's name, or with voters registering and actually voting using fictitious names. There is a great deal of registration fraud—such as when "Mickey Mouse" registers to vote. That problem is an artifact of paying bounty hunters to collect completed registration forms; some of those mercenaries will falsify information on registration forms. But, invariably, Mickey declines to vote on Election Day, so where is the fraud?

Should we accept the notion that registration fraud is limited to voter registration mercenaries?

At least eight people who died well before the November general election were credited with voting in King County, raising new questions about the integrity of the vote total in the narrow governor's race, a Seattle Post-Intelligencer review has found.
(seattlepi.com)

In principle, couldn't I register as three or four recently dead people near voting district, and then vote for each of them? How much would I have to know in order to fake a registration form? Here's what California currently requires.

6. ID Number When you register
to vote, you must provide your California driver’s license or California
identification card number, if you have one. If you do not have a driver’s license or ID card, you must provide the last four digits of your Social Security Number (SSN). If you do not include this information, you will be required to provide identification
when you vote.
(.pdf)

Unfortunately, there are ways to obtain a full Social Security number, which inevitably includes the last four digits. Even more unfortunately, it's not difficult (forgive me if I don't explain how to do it).

So, unless I'm missing something, it should be pretty easy to perpetrate voter fraud by this method, if not others.

As it happens, a number of states have attempted to institute voter ID laws, and have had them struck down as discriminatory (apparently following the principle in the Slate piece that notes that poor folks might have more trouble securing identification).

The objection holds that the state has not justified the law by demonstrating a pattern of voter fraud that the measure would address. But how do you obtain evidence of this type of fraud, and do you really need more than the repeated examples of dead people voting?

It seems that the objection is a non-starter. An obvious loophole justifies correction regardless of any established pattern of abuse. Leaving the loophole in place cannot help but discourage confidence in the legitimacy of our voting systems--even more so than potentially discouraging poor people from voting because they could not afford to obtain identification.
***

The proposed state law in Georgia, I'll add, was amended to subsidize the costs of identification for poor people. It remains to be seen whether or not the courts will find that the mere requirement that would-be voters take one step beyond registering to vote discourages voting to the point that the law is unconstitutional.

I do have a proposal that might help. Take a thumb-print with every vote that is cast without an ID. The thumb print goes on the registration list and not the vote, so the vote remains anonymous. The thumb print provides a potential assurance that the same voter isn't voting in multiple locations. Not only that, it serves as evidence once a suspect is found.
It's common practice in banks, and shouldn't be expensive to implement. Lawmakers can then decide how to best use the system to prevent or punish voter fraud.
***


Identification requirements on the Federal form, which may be used in any state:

Federal law requires that states collect from each registrant
an identification number. You must refer to your state's specific instructions for item 6 regarding information
on what number is acceptable for your state. If you have neither a drivers license nor a social security number,
please indicate this on the form and a number will be assigned to you by your state.
(.pdf)

Here's the relevant portion of the form used in Michigan:

ID Number check applicable box and provide appropriate number
❍
I have a state issued driver license or personal ID card #
State
❍
I do not have a state issued driver license or personal ID card. The last four digits of my Social Security Number are
❍
I do not have a state issued driver license, a state issued personal ID card or a Social Security Number.
An ID number will be assigned to you for voter registration purposes.
(.pdf)

The Michigan form makes it appear that it is possible to register to vote without having a Social Security number. I'd been under the impression that all U.S. citizens of voting age had assigned Social Security numbers. Evidently that isn't the case.