What's the problem?

When you think of voter fraud, exotic foreign locales like Nicaragua, Russia, Tunisia, Lebanon and Egypt might come to mind. Rarely does one think of the United States, provided you don't live in Chicago or near a Philadelphia polling venue patrolled by the New Black Panthers.

Since we are now officially in primary season, the time is ripe to peel back and examine the growing issue of voter identification. Belching over this overripe banana at the end of December was U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who blocked South Carolina's voter ID law. More on that in a moment.

In 2011 alone, there were investigations, indictments or convictions for voter fraud in California, Texas, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina and Maryland. According to the AP, in all but one case, the perpetrators were Democrats. They certainly have their reasons and they aren't very patriotic.

Investigative reporter Matthew Vadum writes in his 2011 tome, "Subversion, Inc.," that of the 1.3 million new voter registrations applied for in 2008 by ACORN (a former employer of your community organizer-in-chief, B.H. Obama), election officials rejected more than 400,000. What's wrong with this picture? Holder, the nation's top cop investigate? Fuhgeddaboudit. Holder refused to prosecute the New Black Panthers for intimidating voters in Philadelphia, so why bother with 400,000 rejected applications?

Moreover, Holder approved of the disastrous Fast and Furious program, which saw hundreds, perhaps thousands, of semi-automatic weapons find their way into the hands of Mexican drug gang members. Holder also has berated white Americans for being, well, white, and who are "cowards" when it comes to addressing race.

In the case of blocking South Carolina's voter ID law, Holder claims he had to do it because "it would hurt minorities." Really? Applying for an ID is somehow hurtful or perhaps racist? If anything is racist, it's the insinuation that minorities somehow lack the competence to obtain a photo ID. Hurtful? I suppose you could develop carpel tunnel syndrome typing out an application online, but the odds have to be great, no?

Obtaining a valid ID is just as easy as signing up for Welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, WIC or any other taxpayer funded entitlement program. No particular race, creed or color seems to have any problems applying or collecting. Photo IDs are required when flying, cashing a check or buying a quart of Thunderbird. This discriminates against no one. Neither does requiring people to prove who they are before voting, unless, of course, there's another raison d'être, like fixing elections.

It stands to reason that a Democrat like Holder would oppose anything that guarantees only American citizens are able to cast ballots. A recent Gallup poll indicates why Holder is trying so hard to reduce election security: Obama trails in key swing states like Ohio, Florida, Colorado and Pennsylvania. Democrats fear they can't win in November unless they bamboozle the ballot box.

Photo ID laws will force Democrats to hustle even harder in order to maintain their winning percentages in some cities where phantom voting is the highest order of an Election Day tradition of, "vote early, vote often."

The only reason to be against any voter ID is to encourage voter fraud.

Most Americans don't think it's a hardship to ask voters to produce identification. A Rasmussen poll last summer showed 75 percent of respondents support photo IDs. Besides, who doesn't possess more than one ID card? It's a small consequence to furnish to help keep our elections honest.

Voter ID laws are nothing new and are gaining in popularity. The AP says seven states - all but one of them governed by Republicans - have passed laws last year requiring voters to show a photo ID at the polls.

Democrats charge it is part of a campaign to suppress the votes of students, immigrants and minorities - groups that generally vote Democrat. Republicans say the new measures aim at preventing voter fraud.

According to a Wall Street Journal editorial from Aug. 3, the federal courts have repeatedly upheld the constitutionality of voter ID laws. "In 2008, John Paul Stevens - no conservative - wrote for a six-vote Supreme Court majority that voter ID laws don't constitute an undue burden on citizens attempting to vote."

Will voter ID laws solve growing voter fraud? No, but they are a huge step in the right direction. This all begs one final question: Where are those Wall Street Protesters when it really counts?

(Maresca, a local freelance writer, composes "Talking Points" for each Sunday edition.)

Sign up for Text Alerts

Sign up for e-mail newsletters