[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 158 (2012), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3446-3447]
[From the U.S. 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

[[Page 3447]]

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. 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.

                          ____________________