In his April 17 diatribe attempting to denigrate election integrity (letters), Brian Richards lists 30-35 examples of routine activities in which ID is required, all valid. The implication is that our current voter ID laws lead to massive election fraud and that Democrats are guilty of being election cheaters. That is simply not the case.
No one questions whether ID fraud exists, whether it should be prevented when possible, or whether it should be prosecuted when encountered. Of course it should be. The point is that it is an extremely rare occurrence having virtually no impact on any election.
In his effort to challenge results of the 2020 presidential election, Donald Trump and his allies brought 62 lawsuits across the country, only one of which succeeded, before it was overturned by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, according to Newsweek. Rudy Giuliani unintentionally exposed the reason for their overwhelming defeats in the Arizona case when he admitted that they did not have any evidence to support their claim, but they did have a theory.
Here’s the conclusion from Factually, an online search site regarding the occurrence of voter fraud: “Based on the best‑available sources here, criminal convictions for voter fraud are rare and, where party affiliation is recorded in case compendia, convictions are distributed roughly evenly between Democrats and Republicans rather than heavily favoring one party; analysts and the Heritage Foundation itself characterize voter fraud as a bipartisan phenomenon, and major studies emphasize the scarcity of fraud overall.”
Although I’m not a criminologist, I can understand why voter ID fraud occurs so infrequently. Consider that the vast majority of crimes include one of three elements: violence, property damage or profit/non-monetary gain. Some crimes involve a combination of these three and many are personal in nature. None of these elements is present in voter ID fraud. It is non-violent, does not involve property, there is no profit-incentive, and it is not personal. Others have said it before, but it bears repeating: “This is a solution in search of a problem.”
Add to that the fact that this “solution” would likely result in a significant reduction in voter participation due to cost and convenience factors. Then ask yourself this: Which is more important in protecting election integrity? Totally eliminating the minuscule occurrence of fraudulent voting or protecting and encouraging the constitutional guarantee of every American citizen to exercise their right to vote?
Jack Crawford
Saugus
