Voter ID law vetoed in New Hampshire
New Hampshire Democratic Governor John Lynch on Thursday rejected a bill requiring a driver's license to vote, saying it "would put into place a photo identification system that is far more restrictive than necessary."
The bill would have required voters to present one of a range of identifications in the coming November election. In subsequent elections, they would have had to provide a military ID, a driver's license or state-issued non-driver ID. Voters unable to comply would have had to fill out an affidavit.
"The use of this inappropriate affidavit will cause confusion, slow the voting process and may result in the inability of eligible voters to cast their vote," Lynch said.
Supporters of the bill, including New Hampshire House Speaker William O'Brien, said it would have prevented voter fraud.
"We need to protect the integrity of the ballot box and guarantee that the 'one person, one vote' principle is not diluted by dishonest votes," O'Brien said in a statement.
Lynch is the sixth Democratic governor to veto voter ID laws since 2011.
According to the National Conference of State Legislators, 16 states have passed laws requiring a photo identification at the polls. Another 16 states have passed laws requiring some form of identification. Mostly Republican state legislators have increasingly taken up voter ID laws over the past two years. Opponents say the laws are unnecessary, since there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud, and are designed to disenfranchise poor and minority voters.
Popular in Politics
- Obama forgets to salute while boarding Marine One Play Video
- The Ted Cruz conundrum
- Petraeus biographer regrets affair
- Senators lack votes on immigration despite progress
- Senator: Oklahoma "hit hard, but we're not knocked out"
- IRS' Lerner was asked to resign, refused: GOP Sen. 205 Comments
- As summer approaches, sequestration threatens holiday fun
- GOP Rep.: Obama elected because of Reagan's immigration reforms













There is no factual reason to require ID for voting, either. It's a red herring to disenfranchise Democratic voters.
-----------
To the Democrats and left disenfranchised voters are Mexican illegals, people who haven't voted in years because they are druggies and alcoholics, transients, criminals who never vote because they could care less and the dead resting in the graveyards across America.
The Democrats load up the buses with most of these types of people to vote and try and register them on election day and pay them a few bucks to vote a straight Democratic ticket.
"Voter registration fraud" is genuinely different from "voter fraud." A modest amoung of "voter registration fraud" exists because organizations that run voter registration drives -- from the very respected League of Women Voters to the controversial (and now defunct) ACORN -- tend to pay minimum wage and set daily quotas for their registrars. So every once in a while, registrars add Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck or auntie from three states away to the list. But it's VERY unlikely any election judge will hand a ballot to Mickey or Donald or distant auntie.
"Voter fraud" is more serious, but even IT more often occurs due to misunderstanding rather than an evil desire to compromise the votes of eligible citizens. For example, some states restore the voting rights of felons who've completed their sentences; other states don't restore those rights, or restore them only after several years. So some ex-felons vote even though they're not eligible, while others who are eligible fail to vote. In neither case is there criminal intent. Some immigrants falsely believe having a green card makes them eligible to vote; if the voter registration office fails to catch this confusion when they register, they may vote even though they're not eligible. But, again, there's no criminal intent.
During the Bush Administration, a special DOJ team under the direction of Hans von Spakovsky spent years and millions of dollars seeking voter fraud. (In the process, eight or ten U.S. Attorneys were fired because they refused to pursue voter fraud cases that didn't have enough evidence to get a conviction.) And all that time and taxpayer money produced perhaps a dozen convictions across the country.
NO ONE wants people who AREN'T eligible to vote. But I wish I were equally confident that none of my fellow citizens wants people who ARE eligible to vote to be PREVENTED from voting by the obstacles we set up to prevent "voter fraud"....
Because that is what is occuring. For most of the purges and ID laws, Hundreds of legitimate voters are not allowed to voice their Constitutional right in order to prevent single digits of illegitimate votes.
The dead will also be voting for Obama along with his Zombies again as they did in 2008.
Oh well!
I can tell by you dishonest blah blah.
Cheaters and frauds one all on the rabid left.
Shameless as well