[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 42 (Wednesday, March 14, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1663-S1664]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
VOTER ID
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, there they go again. On Monday the Justice
Department, under Attorney General Eric Holder, added another account
to its litany of shameful actions by refusing to preclear a commonsense
Texas State law that would require all voters to show a photo ID prior
to casting their vote. The Justice Department's refusal to preclear
this change in Texas law by the Texas Legislature is simply
inexcusable. The Texas voter ID law is constitutional, and it is a
popular measure necessary to protect the integrity of the Texas
election process.
This is not and should not be a partisan issue. The polling I have
seen shows that Republicans, Democrats, and Independents in the 70
percent range all agree that voter ID laws are commonsense responses to
the concerns many have about the integrity of the election process.
But, unfortunately, I can only conclude that Attorney General Holder
and the Justice Department have chosen the low road of politics as
opposed to the high road of the rule of law. I believe, unfortunately,
the evidence supports the conclusion that this represents the lowest
form of identity politics. In the face of high gas prices, the sluggish
economy, and a struggling and rising national debt, the Obama
administration has used every tool in its political toolbox to try to
distract the American people from their priorities--jobs, the economy,
and debt--and, unfortunately, divide the American people while they
distract them from the real issues.
Political games should not force the State of Texas or any other
State to spend its taxpayer dollars suing the Department of Justice in
Federal court, which it now must do, to enforce a State law that is
clearly constitutional. One does not have to take my word for it--just
read an opinion by Justice Stevens in 2008 upholding the
constitutionality of a similar Indiana law. It is nearly identical to
the one in Texas, and it is justified by a valid interest in protecting
the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.
But the Justice Department continues to insist there is something
wrong with requiring every voter to prove their identity before they
vote, just as you are required to do before you board an airplane, buy
a pack of cigarettes at a convenience store, or buy a six-pack of beer
at that same convenience store. If you look on the Web site of the
Department of Justice, in order to gain entry to the Department of
Justice building, you need--you guessed it--a photo ID. Well, this may
sound like common sense. Common sense is evidently not that common at
the Department of Justice these days.
You would have to be blind to reality to deny that a significant
amount of voter fraud exists in the United States. Every State has had
its experience with voter fraud.
In Texas, back in the famous Box 13 election between Coke Stevenson
and Lyndon Johnson for the U.S. Senate, they found a number of votes
from voters who were not even alive--dead votes. Perhaps one of the
most recent books on this was written by John Fund in 2008, a book
called ``Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy.''
In that book Mr. Fund demonstrates why the American people and Texans
fear that their legally cast vote will be diluted with the vote of
people who are not legally qualified to cast a vote.
Unfortunately, we also know that identity theft is rampant. We have
seen this in our broken immigration system, where people claim Social
Security numbers and identification that is not their own but is
actually someone else's. It is also very difficult to prove because
often the legal authorities lack what they need in order to dispute a
voter's identity, thus the need for a government-issued photo ID. As a
result, officials frequently hesitate to accuse someone of casting an
illegal ballot even when they are almost certain a crime is being
committed. It is easy for identity thieves to use another person's
voter certificate to fraudulently cast a ballot when there is no real
requirement for voters to prove their identity. We should be all about
making their job more difficult, not easier.
Every case of actual, alleged, or perceived voter fraud has the
potential to drive prospective voters out of the Democratic process,
undermine the legitimacy of our government, and swing the results in
close elections. The Texas voter ID law is necessary to prevent these
evils.
This administration would have you believe that State ID laws are
intended to drive down the turnout among certain ethnic groups, but
this could not be further from the truth. If people are legally
qualified to vote, this is a law designed to protect their rights and
to make sure their vote counts and that in a close election it will not
be swung by people who have no legal right to vote.
In fact, in their own letter to the Texas secretary of state, the
Justice Department presented no evidence--zero, zip, nada--of
discriminatory intent in the Texas voter ID law. This is because the
law was clearly intended to uphold the sacred principle of ``one
person, one vote'' and is narrowly tailored to avoid all retrogressive
effects on voting rights. For example, under Texas law every registered
voter is entitled to receive a photo identification card free. So if
you don't have a driver's license and you don't have any other form of
photo ID, you can get one for free. It also exempts from its
requirement anybody above the age of 70. What is more, let's say
election day comes and you don't have a photo ID, but you want to vote.
You can cast a provisional ballot even without a photo ID just so long
as you come back within 6 days and produce one showing that you are who
you say you are and thus prove you are legally qualified to vote. The
Texas voter ID law will also make sure no legitimate voter is caught
off guard by requiring the State to inform and educate all citizens as
to what the new law requires.
Despite these multiple layers of protection, the Justice Department
insists on pushing their false narrative that this law will somehow
suppress legitimate voter turnout. Just the contrary is true. The only
votes this ID law will suppress are those people who have no legal
right to vote, and it will protect and preserve the right of legitimate
voters to cast their vote undiluted by votes of people who are not
qualified to vote.
We also know there is data from States that have recently passed
voter ID laws that demonstrates there is no evidence whatsoever to
support the claim of the Department of Justice that it will somehow
potentially suppress minority votes. For example, in Indiana the
subject of the Supreme Court decision in 2008 was an Indiana voter ID
requirement. Election data in Georgia shows that turnout has increased
since the passage of these commonsense photo ID requirements.
The data also shows that the voter ID laws in Georgia and Indiana had
no negative impact on minority groups. These findings should be
unsurprising given some of the research that has been conducted by a
number of universities, including the University of Missouri, the
University of Delaware, and the University of Nebraska, among others.
Research compiled by the University of Denver and the University of
Nebraska from 2000 to 2006 leaves no doubt about the conclusion. They
say: ``Concerns about voter identification laws affecting turnout are
much ado about nothing.''
In spite of these facts, in spite of the evidence, in spite of the
law, the Holder Justice Department continues to cling to their false
narrative, claiming that Texas has not demonstrated significant enough
evidence of voter fraud to justify its voter identification law. That
turns the law of the land on its head.
[[Page S1664]]
Texas is not required to prove to the satisfaction of Eric Holder and
the Justice Department that there is sufficient basis for them to pass
a State law. As the occupant of the chair knows as a former attorney
general of his State, the burden is on those who would contest the
constitutionality of the law to prove it is unconstitutional or to
otherwise prove that it violates Federal law. Under Attorney General
Holder's view, the State of Texas and any State that passes a voter ID
requirement is presumed guilty until proven innocent. As I said, that
turns the legal question on its head. It is exactly the opposite of
what it should be.
The Department of Justice also conveniently fails to mention that
voter impersonation is almost impossible to detect or prove without a
photo ID requirement such as the one passed by the Texas legislature.
They similarly fail to mention that this type of law is perhaps the
best way--the least burdensome way, the least intrusive way--to
eliminate in-person voter fraud. Why would the Justice Department want
to prevent States such as Texas from enforcing laws that help detect
and deter voter fraud? I can't find an answer to that any other way
other than to say that it is pure politics.
The Federal Government should be doing everything in its power to
encourage States to protect the integrity of the ballot, to make sure
that every legitimate voter's vote counts and is not diluted by the
illegal vote of someone who is not qualified under the law to cast a
ballot. Instead, Eric Holder's Justice Department is throwing up
roadblocks to those State-based efforts to protect the integrity of the
election process, forcing my State and taxpayers in my State to waste
money to try to go to court and now to override his decision, which the
Court will do. Why will they do that? How can I be so sure? Because the
U.S. Supreme Court is the law of the land, not Eric Holder and not the
Justice Department, and the Supreme Court has spoken on this issue. But
that is irrelevant to Mr. Holder and the Justice Department, so my
State has to spend--waste, really--taxpayer money to defend this
legitimate and evenhanded requirement when we should be focusing on
other important issues.
This Washington game of divisive identity politics is reprehensible,
and Attorney General Holder should be ashamed of himself for engaging
in it. I hope my colleagues will join me in calling on Attorney General
Holder to respect the rights of the people of Texas and of their States
by reversing his decision to block our commonsense voter identification
law.
Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Cardin). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
The Senator from New York is recognized.
____________________