Notice Of Race And Paper Registration Form: Fill & Download for Free

Hello!Absolutely! Let me just show you based on facts and numbers!Military and Overseas Voting: Donald Trump’s trade war with China has already victimized many American farmers and businesses, but a new group of citizens could soon pay an unexpected price: Voters who cast ballots from overseas—including members of the military—may have to pay $60 or more to send their ballots back to the U.S. in order to be counted.​What does overseas voting have to do with trade policy? The Trump administration is seeking to punish China by withdrawing from the 192-member Universal Postal Union, which for a century and a half has set international postal rates. The UPU allows China to ship packages to the U.S. at a discounted rate, a policy designed to help developing countries that Trump wants to see changed.To get its way, the administration has placed the U.S. on track to leave the UPU in October, just a month before critical elections in many states. If that withdrawal comes to pass, normal mail service could be disrupted for Americans living abroad. As Tierney Sneed noted in a detailed analysis in June, such voters already “face tight—and sometimes impossible—turnaround times between when they receive ballots and when they must send them out to meet their state’s absentee voting deadlines.”Shipping services like FedEx or UPS offer the only alternative, but they’re prohibitively expensive. According to Jared Dearing, the executive director of Kentucky’s Board of Elections, it could cost “upward of $60” just to send in a ballot, prices that would be paid by both civilians and service members living overseas.Making matters worse, Sneed now reports that many election officials are preparing to send out absentee ballots just before the UPU meets in late September to discuss Trump’s demands. These administrators therefore don’t know whether “to tell overseas voters to proceed as usual or to expect new issues” in terms of the cost and time it will take to send back ballots.Turnout is already quite low among Americans abroad: A study published last year by the Federal Voting Assistance Program found that just 7% of voting-age civilians participated in the 2016 elections. The expense and uncertainty surrounding Trump’s conflict with the UPU are only likely to send those numbers even lower.And while overseas voters may appear to be unintentional victims rather than deliberate targets of Trump’s wrecking-ball approach to negotiations with foreign nations, Democrats are likely to suffer more. Overseas civilian voters are some of the strongest Democratic constituencies, and they well outnumber overseas military voters.” That fact can only make it more likely that Trump proceeds on his current course.REDISTRICTING● Michigan: In their ongoing efforts to preserve their ability to gerrymander, Republicans have now filed a second lawsuit in federal court arguing that Michigan's new independent redistricting commission is unconstitutional.This latest suit contends that the process for selecting commissioners violates the GOP's First Amendment rights to freedom of association by preventing political parties from picking their own commissioners. Republicans claim that, since Michigan has no party registration, Democrats could try to apply for the commission as Republicans, even though the process allows each party’s legislative leaders to strike a certain number of applicants from the pool of prospective commissioners.This newest lawsuit follows another one that Republicans filed last month, which also targeted the commissioner selection process by arguing that it's unconstitutional to prevent political candidates, officeholders, lobbyists, and their relatives from serving on the commission. Both lawsuits seek to stop the voter-approved commission from taking effect, and this latest challenge is asking for a preliminary injunction that would leave redistricting in the hands of the Republican-run legislature while litigation remains ongoing.As we wrote when Republicans filed their first lawsuit, it's unclear just exactly what they hope to gain from this litigation in the near term, since even if they succeed in striking down the commission and returning redistricting to lawmakers, they'd still be facing a veto of any new gerrymanders by Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. That would likely yield maps drawn by a court, which would adhere to nonpartisan standards similar to those the commission would rely on.However, it could be that Republicans plan a future lawsuit seeking to remove the governor's veto power over new maps, though it's unclear what mechanism such a frontal assault on the separation of powers would rely on. Their counterparts in Wisconsin nonetheless appear to be plotting just such a maneuver, creating a new front for reformers to monitor.● North Carolina: State Rep. Kelly Alexander and fellow Democrats have filed a lawsuit in state court arguing that Republicans' gerrymandering of the districts used to elect trial court judges in Mecklenburg County violates the U.S. and state constitutions, along with the federal Voting Rights Act.Mecklenburg County is a Democratic stronghold that's home to Charlotte and more than 1 million residents. Last year, Republicans in the state legislature changed Mecklenburg's procedures for judicial elections from a countywide system to one in which the county is split into separate judicial districts, even though all of the elected judges still retain countywide jurisdiction.The GOP's new law gerrymandered the districts in an attempt to elect more white Republicans in place of several black Democrats. Plaintiffs contend that this violated the U.S. Constitution's provisions guaranteeing equal protection and freedom of association, as well as the 15th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act for discriminating against black voters. They furthermore charge that the GOP's judicial redistricting violated the state constitution by creating a new court system without a constitutional amendment. Consequently, they're seeking a preliminary injunction to block the new law.● OH Supreme Court: On Monday, The Columbus Dispatch reported that former Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner and state Judge John O'Donnell will run as Democrats for the two Ohio Supreme Court seats up for election in November 2020, which could have a major impact on redistricting. Ohio Supreme Court candidates run in party primaries but face off in a nonpartisan general election. Brunner indicated that she plans to run against Republican Justice Judith French, and O'Donnell will challenge GOP Justice Sharon Kennedy.Brunner had previously won the 2006 election for secretary of state but later lost the 2010 primary for U.S. Senate. However, she has since been elected to the state's 10th District Court of Appeals, serving since 2014. O'Donnell has been running for some time and is making his third attempt at Ohio's high court: He previously lost by just 50.3-49.7 against GOP Justice Patrick Fisher in 2016 even as Trump was winning Ohio by 51-43. In 2014, he lost to French by a wider 56-44 as the Republican wave hit Ohio especially hard, although that was still a narrower margin than every Democrat running statewide for partisan office.If Democrats win both of these 2020 races, they would gain a 4-3 majority on the state Supreme Court for the first time since the 1980s. Such a majority would have profound consequences for the upcoming post-2020 redistricting cycle. As I’ve explained in detail, Ohio's new systems for congressional and legislative redistricting passed since the last round of redistricting still give the Republicans who dominate state government the power to gerrymander again. However, a Democratic state court majority could use state constitutional protections tostrike down unfair maps in a way that may be insulated from federal review.ELECTION SECURITY● Georgia: The plaintiffs challenging Georgia's paperless voting machines have now asked the federal court that just banned those machines for use in 2020 to also prohibit the state from deploying new voting machines that print a paper ballot with a bar code record, which voters can't verify themselves. Instead, the plaintiffs are urging the court to require paper ballots filled in with pens, which would be fed into optical scanners.FELONY DISENFRANCHISEMENT● Illinois: Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker has signed a new law that aims to ensure everyone in jail who is awaiting trial and has not been convicted of a felony can exercise their right to vote. In Cook County, home to Chicago and roughly 3.5 million eligible voters, this law will require the county jail to operate an in-person polling place. Jails in every other county will be required to provide absentee ballots for eligible detainees.Illinois disenfranchises incarcerated citizens who have been convicted of a felony, but it automatically restores their voting rights upon release from prison. However, many individuals don't realize they regain their right to vote upon release, so this law also seeks to remedy that problem by requiring officials to inform citizens upon releasethat they have regained the right to vote and to provide them with a voter registration form.VOTER REGISTRATION AND VOTING ACCESS● New Jersey: Democratic state senators have scheduled a legislative session for next week to debate legislation to fix New Jersey's vote-by-mail law to ensure that voters who cast an absentee ballot in 2017 or 2018 will automatically receive a new mail ballot for this November's state Assembly elections, and Assembly Democrats may soon do the same.Democrats are mounting this effort after the secretary of state's office decided that voters who requested absentee ballots in those elections would have to make new requests for this year. Supporters of the new mail voting system say that decision runs contrary to the intent of the law, which was passed last year. Jonathan Lai at The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that an estimated 172,000 voters requested mail ballots in 2017 or 2018 but wouldn't automatically receive a ballot this year without a new request unless lawmakers act.Writing at the New Jersey Globe, David Wildstein reports that Democrats are adamant about fixing the vote-by-mail law because of the major absentee ballot campaign operations they mounted in 2017 and 2018, which led to absentee votes heavily favoring the party in those elections. Since the Assembly elections are at the top of the ticket this year (neither the state Senate nor the governor is up for election), turnout would typically be very low. However, voters would likely be more inclined to cast a ballot if they automatically get one in the mail.● Ohio: Republican Secretary of State Frank LaRose and state senators from both parties have introduced a new bill that would make it easier to register to vote at Ohio's Bureau of Motor Vehicles. While the bill would not establish a true automatic voter registration system, it would let eligible voters who are conducting business with the BMV register for the first time or to update an existing registrations electronically rather than with cumbersome paper forms.VOTER SUPPRESSION● North Carolina: State House Republicans have given preliminary approval to a billthat would use lists of people excused from jury duty to try to find noncitizens who are on the voter registration rolls, but reporting from local NBC affiliate WRAL indicates that such an effort could risk removing eligible voters thanks to widespread false matches. Furthermore, WRAL reports that the exact process for removing flagged registrants isn't spelled out in the bill and would be left up to election officials, raising further questions about the risks of removing eligible voters, such as recently naturalized citizens.Republicans passed a procedural hurdle last week with the support of a handful of Democrats, but unclear if they could muster enough support to override a potential veto by Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper, since the GOP doesn't have enough votes to do so on its own.● Voter Suppression: The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected an appeal by the right-wing American Civil Rights Union and conservative activist J. Christian Adams, who sought to overturn a 2018 district court ruling that blocked Adams' ham-fisted plot to get populous Broward County, Florida, to aggressively prune its voter rolls in a way that would have ensnared eligible voters.Adams is one of the foremost Republican peddlers of lies about voter fraud and is also a former member of Trump's bogus voter fraud commission. As explained last year, his courtroom defeat only came as the culmination of his years-long effort to bully local governments into purging eligible voters through legal action. Adams had largely been successful because he’d mostly targeted poor, rural counties with predominantly black populations that had little choice but to settle out of court to avoid costly litigation, but populous Broward was able to fight back—and win.This isn't the only legal setback that Adams has faced this year. In July, Adams and another group he's affiliated with called the Public Interest Legal Foundation settled a lawsuit brought by registered voters in Virginia whom Adams had defamed and intimidated by falsely claiming they were not citizens and exposing their personal information online.SECRETARY OF STATE ELECTIONS● Secretaries of State: The Democratic Association of Secretaries of State has unveiled the races it plans to target next year, which will determine who runs elections in several states. Democrats hope to flip Republican-held offices in Missouri, Montana, Oregon, Washington, and West Virginia, and they aim to defend Democratic incumbents in North Carolina and Vermont. (In North Carolina, elections are administered by an appointee of the governor rather than the secretary of state.)The Pacific Northwest in particular offers top pickup opportunities for Democrats. Oregon will host an open-seat race after Republican Bev Clarno agreed not to seek a full term in exchange for getting appointed by Democratic Gov. Kate Brown following the death of Republican incumbent Dennis Richardson earlier this year. (Oregon law requires appointees to be members of the same party as the deceased office-holder.) Meanwhile, in Washington, Democrats are trying to unseat Republican Secretary of State Kim Wyman.The position of secretary of state is singularly important for guaranteeing fair elections and equal access to the ballot box. Missouri's Republican incumbent Jay Ashcroft recently demonstrated just how vital it is to have a pro-democracy secretary of state after he crafted deceptive ballot language for several proposed ballot initiatives that would expand voting access. Supporters of those measures responded with a lawsuit earlier this month to block Ashcroft's misleading language and substitute in fairer descriptions.BALLOT MEASURES● Colorado: On Tuesday, a panel of judges on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court decision in a 2-1 ruling that upheld Colorado's requirement that those seeking to put amendments to the state constitution on the ballot must gather signatures from at least 2% of registered voters in each of the 35 state Senate districts.Even though some districts have up to 60% more registered voters than others, the judges held that the provision doesn't violate the U.S. Constitution's "one person, one vote" principle because the districts were drawn to be roughly equal in terms of total population based on the 2010 census. It is unclear whether the plaintiffs will seek a further appeal, which could include petitioning the entire 10th Circuit to review the case or appealing to the Supreme Court.Prior to 2016, initiatives only needed signatures equivalent to 5% of the votes cast statewide in the last election for secretary of state. However, a measure passed that year, supported by business interests and then-Gov. John Hickenlooper, established the state's new geographic distribution requirement and also increased the threshold for passage from 50% to 55%.But even though it was backed by Hickenlooper, a Democrat who is now running for Senate, the new distribution requirement makes it disproportionately harder to place progressive initiatives on the ballot than conservative ones. That's because liberals must gather petition signatures in conservative rural districts where Democratic voters are spread out across significant distances, making it costly and time-consuming to canvass for petition signers.By contrast, while conservatives would need to gather signatures in left-leaning strongholds like Denver, districts in urban areas are much more densely populated. Therefore, even though Republicans may be few in number in major cities, they're much easier to reach because they live more closely together.ELECTORAL COLLEGE● Colorado: In a 2-1 decision, a panel of judges on the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a district court ruling that rejected a challenge by a Colorado elector for Hillary Clinton who was removed from office and replaced after he tried to vote for John Kasich.The majority held that it was unconstitutional for the state of Colorado, which has a law on the books that allows for the replacement of electors who don't vote for the candidate by whom they were nominated, to remove elector Michael Baca, who had unsuccessfully attempted to convince Republican electors to write in Kasich's name in order to deny Donald Trump an electoral majority and throw the election to the House.The 10th Circuit's ruling, however, may not stand on appeal. As election law expert Derek Muller notes, this decision failed to take notice of a similar case out of Minnesota that the 8th Circuit rejected last year, deeming the issue moot. Should the Colorado case be reviewed by the entire 10th Circuit or the Supreme Court, Muller says "it could well be tossed on procedural grounds" much like the Minnesota challenge.But if the Colorado ruling were to be upheld by the Supreme Court and set a national precedent, it would unbind every elector from any state law prohibiting faithless electors. Such an outcome could alter the result of a close Electoral College vote, adding uncertainty as to whether a candidate who appeared to have won a narrow victory would in fact prevail in the Electoral College. While faithless electors have been infrequent in modern history, removing any limits could embolden electors to defect and consequently risk chaos if electors were to randomly overturn the expected results…Edit: I would like on Susan Normand’s request add this link: Many Native IDs Won't Be Accepted At North Dakota Polling Places.The Supreme Court declined to overturn North Dakota's controversial voter ID law, which requires residents to show identification with a current street address. A P.O. box does not qualify.Many Native American reservations, however, do not use physical street addresses. Native Americans are also overrepresented in the homeless population, according to the Urban Institute. As a result, Native residents often use P.O. boxes for their mailing addresses and may rely on tribal identification that doesn't list an address.Those IDs used to be accepted at polling places — including in this year's primary election — but will not be valid for the general election. And that decision became final less than a month before Election Day, after years of confusing court battles and alterations to the requirements.

My experience at Georgia Tech was wonderful. Some of the most memorable 4 years of my life.Here is my list:The registration system is confusing, and to be honest, the interface really sucks — it needs an overhaul. For each semester, there are two registration periods (called phases). Depending on who you are, these phases are at different times for different people. (For example, phase 1 for incoming freshmen is — necessarily — spread out across the summer coinciding with FASETs — basically freshman orientation.) The general idea of the phases is that in phase 1, everyone tries to register for what they want (possibly) several months before those classes start. This helps the Schools plan how many of various classes they need to offer (i.e. whether to add more classes of the some course, or to scrap some of the classes). Phase 2 begins a week or so before classes begin, in which student finalize their schedules, and add/drop last minute classes. It's really confusing for freshmen. I highly recommend using courseoff to plan out your schedule, and then go into the registration system and register for all of your classes at once. Georgia Tech highly discourages use of courseoff since it isn't an official Georgia Tech entity, and the school makes no promise that what's on courseoff is in any way accurate or current — but generally it is (always double check!) Registration for your first semester is often a rat race and you rarely get the schedule you were planning. Those with more credit hours get to register earlier, and hence first dibs on a lot of courses (except for incoming students I think?). You won't be able to get your gen Eds out of the way, such as health (APPH 1040 or APPH 1050), as they will be full of people with more hours than you before you even get to register.We don't use the terms freshman / sophomore / junior / senior. This has nothing to do with political correctness. Frankly, people take an average 4.5–5 years to graduate from GT. Instead, we say 1st year / 2nd year / … / 5th year / 6th year / 7th year / 8th year.The classes are difficult — like, actually really challenging. Realize that an enormous amount of undergraduates (>90%) have already taken some form of calculus before they begin school there. If you took calculus in high school, you're not ahead of the curve at Georgia Tech. You're likely normal — maybe even behind in some cases. Notice that the GPA limit for the designation “summa cum laude” is 3.55. For perspective, the University of Georgia GPA cutoff for summa cum laude is 3.9. Not everyone is capable of graduating with a 4.0 from Georgia Tech. I believe everyone is capable of 3.0–3.5 without a doubt. But 4.0’s are incredibly rare among the engineering and science schools especially. I personally find this a perk, because challenging classes actually leave you more capable than less challenging ones by the end of it. The goal is to learn, not just get a good grade (hopefully). Also, it's probably a good thing to be humbled at this age. Meeting 1st years with over 70 credit hours, people who have 4.0’s, etc.Mental health on campus is in general not great. People laugh about all of the homework they have and the various classes they are struggling with, but the general attitude of the joking is pretty negative. I never attended any “parties” during my time at Georgia Tech, but I've heard from people outside of the Institute that the students who do party party extremely hard — as in, unhealthy hard — like as an escape to all the stress of the classes they're taking. The mental health resources weren't very impressive at a time when I really needed them (I ended up being able to find counseling through a church). Maybe things have changed since I've been there, but I doubt it. However, what is nice about GT is that there is quite a comradery that forms through all the stress.The people at GT are incredible. These are some of the most talented students around — while people at other universities are busy partying, GT students are building rockets, programming apps, starting businesses, etc. They are also incrediblely diverse in their interests and excel in them. For example, I competitively ballroom danced with the GT Ballroom team during my time there. The club is well-organized and extremely competitive. They compete in various locations such as Raleigh, NC and Columbus, OH.Most people don't care as much about sports as in other schools — don't get me wrong, there are plenty of die-hard fans, but I only attended 3 football games my entire time at GT. I wasn't locked up in my dorm studying all day. Instead, I was out and about, hanging out with friends, etc. I think there are a decent number of people who share my sentiment: watching overly grown young men slam into each other for hours on end in the hot day isn't my ideal way to spend a Saturday.Don't staple your student ID (your buzzcard). This may sound ridiculous, but I hadn't been on campus for 24 hours when I did it. The story goes something like this: you decide to print out something at one of the print stations on campus. You see the screen “swipe buzzcard to begin,” at which point you look around and see some really high tech thing that looks like it could read your buzzcard. But it's not a card reader. It's an industrial automatic stapler. The card reader is in the keyboard. (I know I'm saving someone from this by writing of it).There are many great professors at GT, and a few bad ones.There is kind of an implication that business majors are somehow “lesser.” Often students will say something to the effect: “worst case scenario, I'll just do business if I can't succeed in my current major.” I even had a friend who switched majors from Aerospace Engineering to business who lied to me about still being an Aerospace Engineering major — I think because she was embarrassed. This is inappropriate. Even if business is less technical, I don't think it's necessarily easier than other professions — it just requires a different skillset.Engineers aren't particularly good at math — this is an inaccurate statement, but as someone who majored in math, and TA'd for courses with plenty of engineering majors, let's just say I'm a lot more nervous about driving on bridges now than before I TA'd.If you go to GT, you will inevitably take more math classes than you would for the same major at most other places.Georgia Tech is a state school, meaning that they have to accept disproportionate amounts of Georgia residents. For a world-class institution, this is quite awkward. If you think hard about it, you will notice a observable difference in the average capability of in-state students, out-of-state students, and international students, increasing in that order. This is simply a consequence of supply and demand — there are more people applying for fewer spots.A nontrivial number of undergraduates don't know the fight song. Incredibly few would recognize the alma mater.The bus system is in need of an overhaul.The Georgia Tech - University of Georgia rivalry is one-sided except at Thanksgiving. For example, in the outdoor men's bathroom, 2nd floor of Skiles, in the first stall, someone has written “uga diplomas, grab one” on the seat cover dispenser above the toilet — implying that uga diplomas are as valuable as toilet set paper covers…There is a “tradition” of stealing T's on campus. I use the quotes because the Institute doesn't recognize it as a tradition because — well — frankly it's vandalism. By “stealing” T's, I mean vandalizing any signage with a T in it, to make the T disappear. For example, someone has stolen the “T” off of Tech Tower before. There is school folklore that says that it's now a felony to do so and that there are pressure sensors and all to keep people from stealing it. When I was a 1st year, someone managed to cut out all the T's on any paper signage on dorm doors, bulletin boards, etc. Sometimes, when walking around campus, you will find a sign where someone has rubbed the T (paint) off.We spell georgia with a lowercase “g” when referring to the University of georgia.TO HELL WITH gEORGIA!

This is a good question.We don’t actually have a problem with voter ID laws. If you were to craft a voter ID law that gave an ID card free of charge to every eligible voter, Democrats wouldn’t oppose it.We have a problem with voter ID laws that are not coupled with measures to equalize ID possession rates. Let me explain.For a variety of socioeconomic reasons, ID possession rates are not equal among all demographic groups in the US. And for a variety of historical reasons, demographic affiliation is highly predictive of voting behavior in the US.The vast majority of non-whites are Democrats. And non-white citizens are less likely than their white counterparts to possess a voter ID. It’s not a matter of lacking a genetic ability to obtain an ID; it’s a socioeconomic reality in the US.Let me zoom in on Texas for a bit, because the data there is so detailed.[1]Again, these are eligible voters. We live in a society where large numbers of eligible voters don’t have a photo identification card or passport. This pattern is exacerbated if you look at the poorest cohort of voters.These differences are huge!Do these eligible voters deserve to vote?Should they be punished for their lack of a photo ID even if they can prove their identify with other documents?Is there a legitimate benefit to the society as a whole accruing from making it more difficult for these citizens to vote?This is a fair question. If, for instance, there were millions of people impersonating others and voting, adopting measures that would make it more difficult for some eligible voters to cast their ballots would be sensible, especially if the number of fraudulent votes thereby prevented was equivalent to the number of eligible votes that otherwise wouldn’t be cast.In other words, if you knew that by adopting a strict voter ID law 50,000 fraudulent votes would be prevented, you would support such a policy even if it made it harder for 50,000 eligible voters to exercise their right to the franchise, the idea being that the integrity of the voting process would be protected.But the only form of fraud that a voter ID law could possibly prevent would be face-to-face voter impersonation. This is exceedingly rare. It has been shown by various investigative studies:[2]The Brennan Center’s seminal report on this issue, The Truth About Voter Fraud, found that most reported incidents of voter fraud are actually traceable to other sources, such as clerical errors or bad data matching practices. The report reviewed elections that had been meticulously studied for voter fraud, and found incident rates between 0.0003 percent and 0.0025 percent. Given this tiny incident rate for voter impersonation fraud, it is more likely, the report noted, that an American “will be struck by lightning than that he will impersonate another voter at the polls.”A study published by a Columbia University political scientist tracked incidence rates for voter fraud for two years, and found that the rare fraud that was reported generally could be traced to “false claims by the loser of a close race, mischief and administrative or voter error.”A 2017 analysis published in The Washington Post concluded that there is no evidence to support Trump’s claim that Massachusetts residents were bused into New Hampshire to vote.A comprehensive 2014 study published in The Washington Post found 31 credible instances of impersonation fraud from 2000 to 2014, out of more than 1 billion ballots cast. Even this tiny number is likely inflated, as the study’s author counted not just prosecutions or convictions, but any and all credible claims.Two studies done at Arizona State University, one in 2012 and another in 2016, found similarly negligible rates of impersonation fraud. The project found 10 cases of voter impersonation fraud nationwide from 2000-2012. The follow-up study, which looked for fraud specifically in states where politicians have argued that fraud is a pernicious problem, found zero successful prosecutions for impersonation fraud in five states from 2012-2016.A review of the 2016 election found four documented cases of voter fraud.Research into the 2016 election found no evidence of widespread voter fraud.A 2016 working paper concluded that the upper limit on double voting in the 2012 election was 0.02%. The paper noted that the incident rate was likely much lower, given audits conducted by the researchers showed that “many, if not all, of these apparent double votes could be a result of measurement error.”A 2014 paper concluded that “the likely percent of non-citizen voters in recent US elections is 0.”A 2014 nationwide study found “no evidence of widespread impersonation fraud” in the 2012 election.A 2014 study that examined impersonation fraud both at the polls and by mail ballot found zero instances in the jurisdictions studied.A 2014 study by the non-partisan Government Accountability Office, which reflected a literature review of the existing research on voter fraud, noted that the studies consistently found “few instances of in-person voter fraud.”While writing a 2012 book, a researcher went back 30 years to try to find an example of voter impersonation fraud determining the outcome of an election, but was unable to find even one.A 2012 study exhaustively pulled records from every state for all alleged election fraud, and found the overall fraud rate to be “infinitesimal” and impersonation fraud by voters at the polls to be the rarest fraud of all: only 10 cases alleged in 12 years. The same study found only 56 alleged cases of non-citizen voting, in 12 years.A 2012 assessment of Georgia’s 2006 election found “no evidence that election fraud was committed under the auspices of deceased registrants.”A 2011 study by the Republican National Lawyers Association found that, between 2000 and 2010, 21 states had 1 or 0 convictions for voter fraud or other kinds of voting irregularities.A 2010 book cataloguing reported incidents of voter fraud concluded that nearly all allegations turned out to be clerical errors or mistakes, not fraud.A 2009 analysis examined 12 states and found that fraud by voters was “very rare,” and also concluded that many of the cases that garnered media attention were ultimately unsubstantiated upon further review.It has been shown in various courts around the nation:The Fifth Circuit, in an opinion finding that Texas’s strict photo ID law is racially discriminatory, noted that there were “only two convictions for in-person voter impersonation fraud out of 20 million votes cast in the decade” before Texas passed its law.In its opinion striking down North Carolina’s omnibus restrictive election law —which included a voter ID requirement — as purposefully racially discriminatory, the Fourth Circuit noted that the state “failed to identify even a single individual who has ever been charged with committing in-person voter fraud in North Carolina.”A federal trial court in Wisconsin reviewing that state’s strict photo ID law found “that impersonation fraud — the type of fraud that voter ID is designed to prevent — is extremely rare” and “a truly isolated phenomenon that has not posed a significant threat to the integrity of Wisconsin’s elections.”Even the Supreme Court, in its opinion in Crawford upholding Indiana’s voter ID law, noted that the record in the case “contains no evidence of any [in-person voter impersonation] fraud actually occurring in Indiana at any time in its history.” Two of the jurists who weighed in on that case at the time — Republican-appointed former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens and conservative appellate court Judge Richard Posner — have since announced they regret their votes in favor of the law, with Judge Posner noting that strict photo ID laws are “now widely regarded as a means of voter suppression rather than of fraud prevention.”And it has been shown by various governmental investigations.Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, a longtime proponent of voter suppression efforts, argued before state lawmakers that his office needed special power to prosecute voter fraud, because he knew of 100 such cases in his state. After being granted these powers, he has brought six such cases, of which only four have been successful. The secretary has also testified about his review of 84 million votes cast in 22 states, which yielded 14 instances of fraud referred for prosecution, which amounts to a 0.00000017 percent fraud rate.Texas lawmakers purported to pass its strict photo ID law to protect against voter fraud. Yet the chief law enforcement official in the state responsible for such prosecutions knew of only one conviction and one guilty plea that involved in-person voter fraud in all Texas elections from 2002 through 2014.A specialized United States Department of Justice unit formed with the goal of finding instances of federal election fraud examined the 2002 and 2004 federal elections, and were able to prove that 0.00000013 percent of ballots cast were fraudulent. There was no evidence that any of these incidents involved in-person impersonation fraud. Over a five year period, they found “no concerted effort to tilt the election.”An investigation in Colorado, in which the Secretary of State alleged 100 cases of voter fraud, yielded one conviction.In Maine, an investigation into 200 college students revealed no evidence of fraud. Shortly thereafter, an Elections Commission appointed by a Republican secretary of state found “there is little or no history in Maine of voter impersonation or identification fraud.”In Florida, a criminal investigation into nine individuals who allegedly committed absentee ballot fraud led to all criminal charges being dismissed against all voters.In 2012, Florida Governor Rick Scott initiated an effort to remove non-citizen registrants from the state’s rolls. The state’s list of 182,000 alleged non-citizen registrants quickly dwindled to 198. Even this amended list contained many false positives, such as a WWII veteran born in Brooklyn. In the end, only 85 non-citizen registrants were identified and only one was convicted of fraud, out of a total of 12 million registered voters.In Iowa, a multi-year investigation into fraud led to just 27 prosecutions out of 1.6 million ballots cast. In 2014 the state issued a report on the investigation citing only six prosecutions.In Wisconsin, a task force charged 20 individuals with election crimes. The majority charged were individuals with prior criminal convictions, who are often caught up by confusing laws regarding restoration of their voting rights.Given this reality, the logical conclusion is that the adoption of voter ID laws in the United States has one primary effect: making it harder for poor non-whites to vote while doing nothing to prevent fraud.We also have various Republican elected officials admitting on camera that voter ID laws are adopted in order to help them win elections. [3] [4]Finally, we have studies on what effects those laws have. And the truth is that the results are mixed. Studies have not consistently shown a strong effect.[5]This might be because the people least likely to possess a voter ID are also the least likely to vote. It might also be that the laws backfire in that they can be used by the Democratic Party to mobilize its voter base.Still, it’s hard not to notice that at the very least the intent of these laws is partisan. And it’s not surprising that the party whose eligible voters are most likely to be adversely impacted should oppose these laws.Footnotes[1] https://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legal-work/Barreto_Expert_Report_%28Veasey_and_MALC%29.pdf[2] Debunking the Voter Fraud Myth[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/07/republicans-should-really-stop-admitting-that-voter-id-helps-them-win/[4] Some Republicans Acknowledge Leveraging Voter ID Laws for Political Gain[5] A major study finding that voter ID laws hurt minorities isn’t standing up well under scrutiny