Karl Rove's Big Election Fraud Hoax

At Salon.com, Garrett Epps writes:
By evil chance, I spent the Saturday night before Election Day 2000 at a jolly dinner for high-level Republicans. Most of the talk over the entrees concerned why then-candidate George W. Bush had been too pusillanimous to tell the voters that Al Gore was not just a liberal, but a Soviet-style Marxist-Leninist. But as the desserts circulated, so too did a piece of comic relief -- an anonymous leaflet explaining to voters that because of heavy voter registration, the rules had been changed: Republicans would vote on Tuesday, Democrats and independents on Wednesday.

I think of that dinner whenever I read about the widening scandal of the U.S. attorneys and the politicization of the Justice Department under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Gonzo is probably the most endangered man since William Tell's son Walter. The pattern behind the scandal, however, transcends Gonzales' fate or that of his underlings.

At least part of the U.S. attorneys plot seems to derive from the "election fraud" hoax that Republicans are trying to perpetrate in order to gain control of the country's voter lists. So nailing this inept crew of thugs won't be good enough. We need laws protecting the right to vote from the kind of phony, partisan prosecutors that Gonzales, Rove and Co. were trying to put in place, and from the punitive, restrictive voter-ID laws that are a prominent part of the far-right political agenda.

Republicans do cherish their little practical jokes -- the leaflets in African-American neighborhoods warning that voters must pay outstanding traffic tickets before voting; the calls in Virginia in 2006 from the mythical "Virginia Election Commission" warning voters they would be arrested if they showed up at the polls. The best way to steal an election is the old-fashioned way: control who shows up. It's widely known that Republicans do better when the turnout is lighter, whiter, older and richer; minorities, young people and the poor are easy game for hoaxes and intimidation.

The latest and most elaborate of these jokes is the urban legend that American elections are rife with voter fraud, particularly in the kinds of poor and minority neighborhoods inhabited by Democrats. In 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft announced that fraudulent voting would be a major target of the Department of Justice. As the New York Times reported last month, the main result of this massive effort was such coups as the deportation of a legal immigrant who mistakenly filled out a voter-registration card while waiting in line at the department of motor vehicles.

But the administration has remained ferociously committed to suppressing voter fraud -- as soon as it can find some. In April of last year, Karl Rove warned a Republican lawyers' group that "we have, as you know, an enormous and growing problem with elections in certain parts of America today. We are, in some parts of the country, I'm afraid to say, beginning to look like we have elections like those run in countries where the guys in charge are, you know, colonels in mirrored sunglasses. I mean, it's a real problem.

"I appreciate that all that you're doing in those hot spots around the country to ensure that the ballot -- the integrity of the ballot is protected, because it's important to our democracy."

One of the aims of the abortive purge of U.S. attorneys was to punish those who refused to toe the line on the new emphasis on alleged voter fraud. A few fired prosecutors would serve as examples to the rest –- either move to criminalize the election process or face dismissal.

But the assault on voter fraud was a solution looking for a problem. As part of the Help America Vote Act, Republicans insisted on creating the Election Assistance Commission, which commissioned studies of the asserted problem. When the studies failed to turn up evidence of fraud nationwide, appointed Republican officials on the EAC insisted that the language say only that "there is a great deal of debate on the pervasiveness of fraud in elections" -- the same approach to inconvenient evidence that's made the Bush global-warming policy the envy of the world.

The legend of massive voter fraud forms the backdrop to enactment of harsh voter-ID laws. As previously recounted in Salon, a state voter-ID law in Missouri nearly prevented the Democrats from retaking the U.S. Senate -- a prime example of how the voter fraud narrative was used to sell a law intended to keep Democrats from the polls.

In November 2000, Missouri Republican John Ashcroft lost his Senate seat in a close election in which the votes of African-Americans from St. Louis were crucial. Ashcroft's next job was U.S. attorney general. The Department of Justice and Missouri's two U.S. attorneys soon undertook multiple voter fraud investigations. They probed the 2000 election, the 2001 mayoral primary in St. Louis, and the 2004 election, convicting a total of four people. The resulting specter of fraud was used to float a voter-ID law in the Republican-dominated state Legislature, which was finally passed in May 2006.

By then, President Bush had already used a Patriot Act loophole to dispatch Bradley Schlozman, who had supervised the voting section of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division, to Kansas City as the Western District of Missouri's new U.S. attorney. Less than a week before Election Day 2006, Schlozman indicted four people for voter fraud. Schlozman's endeavors were first spotlighted by Salon in a report on March 21, helping to make him the target of increasing blogger and media scrutiny. As one former senior Justice official told Salon then, Schlozman's appointment had senior Justice Department officials "scratching their heads" because Schlozman "was not a very well-regarded trial attorney."

In the end, the voter-fraud scare didn't help Missouri Republicans. Schlozman may have been filing indictments, but the state Supreme Court had struck down Missouri's new voter-ID law a month before the election, finding that it contravened the state constitution. On Nov. 7, Democrat Claire McCaskill defeated incumbent Republican Jim Talent by fewer than 50,000 votes out of more than 2 million cast. The voter-ID law would've required about 170,000 registered voters to apply for a new ID just to be allowed to vote again.

We can't count on the U.S. Constitution to protect the election process. The Constitution does not explicitly protect the right to vote, and the conservative majority on the Rehnquist and Roberts courts has proved friendly to anti-turnout measures. As Mark Graber of the University of Maryland pointed out recently, the court echoed right-wing rhetoric about voter fraud in a little-noticed 2006 opinion allowing Arizona to implement its restrictive voter-ID law. "Voters who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised," the court's per curiam opinion stated. This is the argument that voter-restrictionists have fallen back on. There may be no voter fraud, but if people think there is, then we should tighten up anyway. That's the argument used in Missouri (with support from the White House), where studies showed elections were mostly clean. As Graber noted, to restrictionists, "such a 'feeling' offsets the interests of voters who are disenfranchised by voter-ID laws by actually driving honest citizens out of the democratic process!"

So we can't count on federal courts; and not every state constitution contains a guarantee as specific as Missouri's provision guaranteeing the vote to "all citizens of the United States." In 2007, the right to vote is a little like the swimmers in the film "Open Water" -- still afloat, but encircled by hungry sharks who sooner or later will move in for the kill.

The answer is in the hands of the new Democratic majority in Congress. Though most Americans believe that the states are in sole charge of voting and elections, the framers at Philadelphia recognized that state officials might abuse their authority over voting. That's why Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution gives states the initial power to supervise federal elections -- but adds that "Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations." This provision was hotly debated during ratification; but federalists insisted that Congress needed this backstop power to protect the republican character of the new government against state meddling.

The new Congress so far has considered only a few measures to protect the right to vote: Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., has proposed a bill to require voting machines to keep paper trails; Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., wants to outlaw certain deceptive practices aimed at voter suppression.

But such defensive measures amount to little more than swatting sharks' noses. We're going to need a bigger boat. In the 1970 case of Oregon v. Mitchell, a fractured court approved a statute lowering the voting age to 18 in federal elections, even if states insisted on keeping it at 21 for state voting. (The 26th Amendment subsequently lowered the age to 18 for all elections.) How about a bill making clear that every American who is not under active sentence for felony has a right to vote for those who will govern the country? The bill could go on to say that states could require reasonable identification for new registrants, but outlaw onerous provisions like Missouri's, which would, for example, have required that married women produce legal documentation of their name change. (I reviewed the Missouri law with my mother, who has voted in every election since 1944. We determined that, had she lived in Missouri, she would have been barred from the polls in 2006.)

For that matter, why not just move the entire country to the vote-by-mail system we use in my home state of Oregon? It's quick, it's convenient, it leaves a paper trail, and we have had no credible accusations of voter fraud since it was adopted during the 1990s -- and a stunning 86 percent of registered voters cast ballots in the 2004 presidential election.

Voter fraud is a phony issue, and if restrictionists shape the dialogue, sooner or later our right to vote will become property of the Karl Roves, who will use the machinery of the criminal law to recreate the electorate in their own image.

The real issue is the right of every American citizen to vote, the right of the people to choose their rulers, rather than the reverse. Who can really oppose that, if asked about it in the light of day?

How U.S. Attorneys Were Used To Spread Voter-Fraud Fears

At Salon.com, Mark Follman, Alex Koppelman and Jonathan Vanian write:
Under intense criticism for firing eight United States attorneys, the Bush administration has spent the past few weeks casting about for an explanation for the dismissals that involves performance rather than politics. On March 13, White House spokesman Dan Bartlett tried to come up with one. "Over the course of several years, we have received complaints about U.S. attorneys," he insisted, "particularly when it comes to election fraud cases." On Tuesday, President Bush pressed home this claim with a similar statement during his defense of embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. "We did hear complaints and concerns about U.S. attorneys," said Bush. "Some complained about the lack of vigorous prosecution of election fraud cases."

Bush and Bartlett were arguing that some of the fired attorneys had underperformed by failing to prosecute the raft of offenses that make up voter fraud -- things like vote buying, double voting, and voting by felons, illegal aliens and the deceased. And it is true that at least two of the prosecutors who were let go might not have pursued voter fraud cases to the satisfaction of their bosses at the Department of Justice. But under the Bush administration, pursuing voter fraud is not always about performance. It's often about politics.

A belief in rampant voter fraud in Democratic strongholds -- big cities, minority neighborhoods -- is widespread among Republicans, and claims of vote buying and the like have long been a mainstay of GOP rhetoric. The party has used these claims of voter fraud to help build public support for what it considers electoral reforms, like requiring voters to show photo ID -- reforms that also tend to suppress Democratic turnout on Election Day.

During the Bush administration, a rhetorical tool became public policy. The Republicans could not get a photo ID law through the Senate, but they were able to enlist the 93 United States attorneys in their crusade against voter fraud. In 2002, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft announced an initiative that required "all components of the [Justice] Department" to "place a high priority on the investigation and prosecution of election fraud."

Five years later, Ashcroft's initiative hasn't produced all that much in the way of convictions, at least relative to the overall Department of Justice caseload. Prosecutions for electoral fraud remain a minuscule part of the federal criminal docket. In 2002 alone, there were 80,424 criminal cases concluded nationwide in the 94 U.S. District Courts. By comparison, according to a DOJ document, between the fall of 2002 and the fall of 2005, there were only 95 defendants charged with federal election-fraud-related crimes in the whole country.

After all, election fraud on the federal level can be hard to prove, since proving it often requires that the fraud was committed with the intent of preventing a "fair and impartially conducted election." In New Mexico in 2004, U.S. Attorney David Iglesias, one of the two fired U.S. attorneys who allegedly failed to pursue electoral fraud cases, took a pass on an especially dubious prosecution. A swing state that Gore won by 366 votes in 2000 and Kerry lost by fewer than 7,000, New Mexico is also the site of a long, bitter and ongoing battle between Republicans and Democrats over requiring voters to show photo ID. In 2004, state Republicans pressured Iglesias to file charges in the case of a 13-year-old boy who was illegally registered to vote. The boy had been registered without his or his parents' knowledge, and Iglesias declined to indict anyone. In an interview with Salon, Iglesias conceded that some local Republicans may have been especially disappointed to learn he would not be pursuing criminal charges for election fraud because they would have liked the extra political ammunition.

But sometimes pursuing an investigation can be just as effective as a conviction in providing that ammunition and creating an impression with the public that some sort of electoral reform is necessary. The battle between Democrats and Republicans over photo ID has been most contentious in so-called battleground states like New Mexico. In one such purple state, the GOP used repeated and very public accusations of fraud to ram a photo ID law through the state legislature. In Missouri, Republicans have been accusing Democrats of fraud since the 2000 election. During the Bush administration, three different U.S. attorneys have launched investigations into electoral fraud in Missouri, indicting nine people. Last year, prior to the midterm elections, the administration even dispatched a key voting fraud expert from Washington to assume the job of U.S. attorney in Missouri's Eastern District.

It all began in November of 2000, when then-Sen. John Ashcroft lost a close election to a dead man, Democrat Mel Carnahan. That election was a controversial one in Missouri -- polls remained open past the official closing time in St. Louis, a city dominated by African-American Democrats. This infuriated Republicans, especially Sen. Kit Bond, who delivered a podium-pounding denunciation of alleged voter fraud at the Missouri GOP's victory party on election night. Bond later spearheaded calls for an investigation, pushing Republican lawyers to put together a dossier of allegations that was then delivered to the outgoing, Clinton-appointed U.S. attorney for the Eastern District.

When Bush appointee Raymond W. Gruender took over as U.S. attorney for the St. Louis-based Eastern District, a federal grand jury was hearing testimony about electoral fraud by Gruender's third day on the job. However, before long the grand jury apparently shifted its emphasis from the 2000 race to improprieties in yet another election, the March 2001 Democratic mayoral primary. Investigation of the 2000 election became the province of DOJ lawyers in Washington. Ultimately, neither Gruender nor his superiors in D.C. filed any charges, but after Gruender kicked the investigation of the mayoral primary back to St. Louis city officials, eight individuals were convicted in state court. Gruender was later named to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.

Missouri Republicans used the multiple investigations, which together lasted more than a year, as evidence in a push for tougher election laws. By spring of 2002, they were proposing a law requiring that voters show photo ID. The state Legislature finally passed a Republican-sponsored photo ID law four years later, in May 2006. Helping the Republican cause was yet another major investigation of voter fraud by the state's other U.S. attorney, Todd P. Graves of Missouri's Western District, headquartered in Kansas City. In 2004 and 2005 he prosecuted and convicted four people for voting in both Missouri and neighboring Kansas.

Missouri's photo ID law was struck down by the state Supreme Court in October 2006, just before the midterm elections. But by then, the Bush administration had used a loophole in the Patriot Act to appoint Bradley Schlozman, who had supervised the voting section of the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ at headquarters in Washington, as Graves' successor in the Western District. The loophole was closed by a vote of the Senate on Tuesday, but in March of 2006 Alberto Gonzales was able to make Schlozman a U.S. attorney without seeking confirmation from the Senate.

The appointment, the first under the controversial Patriot Act provision, raised eyebrows at DOJ, one former senior Justice Department official told Salon. "Schlozman was one of Gonzales' guys," the former senior official said, "but several of us were scratching our heads when we heard about it because he was not a very well-regarded trial attorney."

Schlozman, who graduated from law school in 1996, was a clerk for three years and an appellate attorney in Washington for two years before joining the Department of Justice. He certainly had less experience (PDF) as a criminal prosecutor than many of his fellow U.S. attorneys. But as the head of the voting section of the DOJ's civil right division, he knew a lot about election fraud. In 2005, he had penned an editorial for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution supporting a bill passed by the Republican-dominated Georgia state Legislature requiring voters to show photo ID. Schlozman argued that the bill would not be an impediment to minority voters.

Less than a week before the 2006 midterm election, in which Missouri was the scene of one of the year's tightest Senate contests, Schlozman announced the indictment of four people for voter fraud. The four had allegedly submitted false voter registrations while working for the group ACORN in the inner city of Kansas City. An organization that conducts registration drives in poor and minority urban neighborhoods, i.e., areas of Democratic strength, ACORN has often been a target of fraud accusations by the right. "This national investigation is very much ongoing," said Schlozman in a statement issued Nov. 1. The indictments were trumpeted by myriad conservative blogs and such national outlets as Fox News, the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times.

More than four months after he announced them -- and after incumbent Republican Sen. Jim Talent lost a close election to Democrat Claire McCaskill -- Schlozman's four indictments have produced one guilty plea. An indictment against a fifth person was dropped. In the wake of the U.S. attorneys scandal, meanwhile, Schlozman is suddenly on his way out. On Jan. 16, two days before he gave his annual testimony to Congress, during which Democrats questioned him about the mass firing of U.S. attorneys, Attorney General Gonzales announced that John Wood would be taking Schlozman's place in Kansas City. "Schlozman had [only] been there for 10 months," the former senior Justice Department official told Salon. Until the firings became an issue, "They weren't going to replace him."

Political considerations aside, are the types of prosecutions pursued by Schlozman and his peers valid? Is real fraud actually common? As Bud Cummins, one of the eight U.S. attorneys just fired by the Bush administration, tells Salon, cases involving registration drives by groups like ACORN do crop up. But Cummins notes that when there is fraud connected to groups like ACORN, it is often perpetrated upon them, not by them. The groups sometimes pay workers by the number of registrations they turn in, which can lead some of the workers to falsify registrations to earn more money. Others, paid by the hour, falsify registrations so they can appear to have logged extra time.

The "voters" whose names wind up on the phony registrations are usually oblivious. "Those people that are registered in those ways either don't exist or don't know they're registered," said Cummins, who was U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Arkansas. He also notes that most of these fraudulent registrations will never be used to vote. He provided one example of a case he investigated, in which a registration worker had simply used a phone book to pick out names at random. "You'd see something like Bud Smith, then Kate Smith," he recalled, "and then there was Smith Auto Body."

More generally, there seems to be little statistical basis for the Republican fixation on voter fraud. The few studies that have been done show fraud to be insignificant to the outcome of elections; it has been measured at levels as low as .0004 percent (PDF) of all ballots cast. Loraine Minnite, an assistant professor of political science at Barnard College, conducted a study of elections from 1992 to 2002 for Demos, a London- and New York-based public-policy think tank. Her analysis of the numbers showed that "the incidence of election fraud in the United States is low and that fraud has had a minimal impact on electoral outcomes." A 2006 report from the United States Election Assistance Commission, an independent agency created by Congress to "[conduct] research on election administration issues," calls Minnite's study the "most systematic look at fraud" (PDF).

The problem with the data cited by Minnite and other researchers is that it only counts people who were caught. And for people who believe that voter fraud is widespread, meaning Republicans, the other problem is the source. Numeric research on voter fraud tends to be conducted by and for people who don't believe it's widespread, meaning liberals. Demos, the think tank for which Minnite conducted her study, is progressive. Minnite also just wrote a new paper debunking voter fraud for Project Vote -- a group affiliated with ACORN. Despite a federal agency's endorsement, don't expect Republicans to read and heed Minnite's "systematic study" or to believe anyone else who suggests voter fraud is less than rampant. In fact, the USEAC report that includes an endorsement of Minnite's study was initially withheld. The USEAC delayed releasing it, according to the agency's chairman, a Bush appointee, because of "a division of opinion." The report had failed to give much credence to the issue of voter fraud.

You Have No Right To Vote

In Salon.com, Garrett Epps writes:
Last week, a Missouri judge reminded the state Legislature that citizens of the state have a right to vote. And because it is a right, not a privilege granted by the powerful, Missourians can cast their ballots this November without having to meet identification requirements that seemed designed to make it harder for certain people -- the poor, the elderly, minorities and women -- to exercise that right.

That's the good news. The bad news is that this right comes from the Missouri state Constitution. The U.S. Constitution does not explicitly guarantee a right to vote, and our federal courts currently read the document not to include it.

The Missouri case should spark some national discussion about why it is that our country, almost alone among advanced democratic nations, does not find this right worth including in its Constitution. It should also inspire closer scrutiny of a kind of a electoral gamesmanship that is going on around the country, as Republicans seek to exploit this gap in our democratic guarantees.

The Republican majority of the Missouri Legislature has been haunted by a fear that is widespread in red America: a fear that the wrong kinds of people are voting. As a result, they passed a "Voter Protection Act," which required a state-issued photo ID for any voter who shows up at the polls. A state driver's license would do. But those who didn't already have a license -- even if they had been voting at the same address for the past half-century -- would be required to get a state-issued ID. To get one of those IDs, they would need to produce proof of citizenship, like a birth certificate or a passport, as well as documents showing that they were lawfully present at their current addresses. If they had ever changed their names -- if, for example, they were women voting under their married names -- they would be required to produce documents legitimizing the name change as well.

At first glance, this might seem like a minor thing. The bill's sponsor, Republican state Sen. Delbert Scott, noted that "you have to use [photo ID] to get on an airplane, to buy cigarettes." And, after all, the requirement would impact a small group of citizens -- a mere 170,000. That's only about 4 percent of the electorate, hardly a significant number. It is only, for example, eight times the margin of victory by which Sen. Jim Talent (coincidentally running for re-election this fall) defeated Democratic incumbent Jean Carnahan in 2002.

Most people don't really have to show ID to buy cigarettes. Beyond that, to state the obvious, neither air travel nor cigarette smoking is a fundamental component of democratic self-government. Voting is. A law that increases the cost and difficulty of voting will predictably reduce the number of people who vote, and a democracy that excludes large numbers of its citizens from the franchise isn't worthy of the name.

Many middle-class whites don't realize that for the poor and minorities, voting can be a difficult and even scary proposition. I first learned this as a poll-watcher in 1976, when I saw a white registrar in Virginia solicitously asking a black voter whether he was sure his registration form had been properly filled out. "You know fraudulent voting is a federal crime, don't you?" she purred, smiling sweetly. Southern Republicans often blanket poor black neighborhoods warning would-be voters that they might be arrested at the polls if they have unpaid traffic tickets.

Intriguingly, the Republican sponsors of the Missouri bill weren't really able to argue that it was needed to prevent fraud as such. Despite their best efforts, they couldn't find much evidence of fraudulent voting. So they argued instead that the law was needed because without it, solid Missouri citizens -- the kind of people who vote Republican, for example -- might be tempted to think there was fraud at the polls. Gov. Matt Blunt explained that the bill would "restore Missourians' confidence in state elections." (Blunt's margin of victory in 2004 -- certified by himself as secretary of state -- was 3 percent of the vote.) The Springfield News Leader, which supported the bill, said it would provide "peace of mind for voters who want to know that cheaters aren't improperly influencing an election."

But on Sept. 14, Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan blocked the law from taking effect. Callahan pointed out that Article VII of Missouri's Constitution says that "All citizens of the United States ... who are residents of this state ... are entitled to vote at all elections by the people." The ID rule, he reasoned, would allow the Legislature to add an onerous qualification to those spelled out in the Constitution.

The judge's decision squares with common sense, as well as with the text. And it highlights the lack of a similar provision in the U.S. Constitution. As a result of this lack, other states -- mostly those in which Republicans currently run the legislature -- are adding such requirements. Former Bush campaign officials last year launched a new conservative advocacy group, the oxymoronically titled American Center for Voting Rights, designed to push such legislation at both the state and federal levels. So far, Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Florida and Ohio have passed or tightened photo ID laws. Democratic governors in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania vetoed such laws earlier this year, and state and federal courts have both blocked the Georgia law.

Throughout our history, Americans have been profoundly ambivalent about the vote. The Constitution of 1787 left the issue of federal voting rights entirely to the states, which could disenfranchise their voters more or less as they chose. Today, even though "the right to vote" is by now mentioned five times in the amended Constitution, the federal courts continue to insist that voting is mostly a state matter. The Supreme Court restated the point in 2000, in Bush v. Gore. "The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States," said the Court, rather breezily, "unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College."

Meanwhile, virtually every other advanced democracy already has an explicit guarantee of the right to vote. Ironically, whenever the United States imposes a constitution on another (conquered) nation, we tend to insist that they include in those documents a right we do not ourselves possess. Afghans have "the right to elect and be elected," Iraqis have "the right ... to vote, to elect, and to nominate," and the Japanese enjoy "universal adult suffrage."

Since the fiasco in Florida, a number of scholars and activists have been working to generate a constitutional fix for this problem. American University law professor Jamie Raskin (who was elected last week to the Maryland state Senate) in 2001 proposed an amendment that would say, in part, "Citizens of the United States have the right to vote in primary and general elections ... and such right shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State." At the time, Raskin noted that "only Azerbaijan, Chechnya, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Libya, Pakistan, Singapore, and, of course, the United Kingdom ... still leave voting rights out of their constitutions." Raskin's call has been echoed by other scholars. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill., has championed such an amendment, and FairVote.org, an advocacy group, is fighting for national and local reforms that would make clear that it is the government's responsibility to ensure that all eligible voters have a chance to cast a ballot.

But with Republicans in charge in many state capitals and Washington, the momentum in practical terms is moving the other way. On Sept. 14, the U.S. House Administration Committee approved by a straight party vote a proposed bill that would require all voters nationwide to obtain IDs by producing a birth certificate or passport.

This argument is too crucial to democracy, and too easy to win, for progressives to let it slide. Voting is not a privilege for which citizens must qualify by showing their ability to dodge bureaucratic hurdles. If fraud really is a concern, state elections officials could be authorized to update voter lists and follow up on changes of address. That's what happens in most other democratic countries.

Real democratic values in this country are currently under assault. Day after day, we must justify concepts that were once accepted as givens. We are forced to discuss whether a free country really needs the rule of law, or freedom of speech, or an executive subject to legislative oversight. It would be nice to begin campaigning for measures that would do more than just get democracy out of its defensive crouch -- that would actually make democracy stronger. A right to vote might be one of them. When the argument is truly joined, who can be against it?