As requested, I’d like to help Michael Sandeen (letters, June 5) understand my objections to required voter ID.
First, he raises the fact that we are aware of hospice fraud and day care fraud because someone outside of government looked for it. I agree, and would include Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, homelessness and many other government programs are also subject to fraud costing taxpayers billions of dollars collectively. But as I pointed out in my original letter, there is not a similar profit motive for someone to commit voter ID fraud.
As for it being properly investigated, there were 62 lawsuits brought by the Trump campaign regarding the validity of the 2020 election. Sixty-one failed and the other was overturned. Prior to his involvement with the Trump campaign, Rudy Guilani had been a respected federal prosecutor. Is it unreasonable to expect that he and his fellow petitioners would have had the requisite knowledge, ability and opportunity to conduct the necessary investigation into the alleged voter fraud they claimed? Further, voter fraud is a serious crime against the government. There are 50 states’ attorneys-general who have the authority and resources at their disposal to conduct the appropriate investigations into voter ID fraud if they feel it is warranted.
Mr. Sandeen questions my mentioning that the artificial intelligence website Factually states that convictions for voter fraud are rare, yet neither he nor anyone else has provided substantive proof that such fraud exists. Show me the evidence and I’ll support the need for prosecution.
I fully agree that, for the vast majority of people, including myself, there is no problem in providing a valid photo ID when requested. However, having been a notary public for 20 years, I am also aware that this can be a problem for a small but significant number of the population. For the most part these people are older, less advantaged, and in many cases minorities. Nevertheless, they are fellow citizens and as such do not deserve to be disenfranchised simply because of their circumstances. (There is an alternative ID option for notarial purposes requiring in-person witnesses, but it would not be practical for voter ID purposes at the polls.)
Rick Barker (letters, June 4) raises the questions of close elections and mail-in voting, so let’s address those as well. There is a provision that when elections are within a certain margin there is an automatic recount initiated. Vote counts are adjusted accordingly. As for mail-in voting, I support it 100%. It is more convenient, allows time for thoughtful consideration, takes pressure off the polling places, and has proven to be just as secure as in-person voting. I do, however, agree that allowing a seven-day grace period is extreme. Three or four days seems sufficient, five at the max.
If providing a valid photo ID at the time of in-person voting would speed up the tabulating process, I would be all for instituting it — as long as that did not impact registered voters who did not possess one.
Jack Crawford
Saugus
