Thursday, January 19, 2012

State should waive ID fee and require proof to vote

The following is my letter to the editor of the Cape Cod Times published on January 19, 2012.

There is simply no reasonable argument against presenting identification at the polls. 
To register to vote, the secretary of state requires acceptable identification that includes the name and the address at which one is registered to vote. Examples include a current and valid driver's license, photo identification, current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check, or other government document showing name and address. 
I support allowing the same to be used at the polls and a waiver of the $25 fee for acquiring a state-issued photo ID. No doubt that removal of these "impediments" to vote would spur a second round of disenfranchisement scenarios, exposing the real motivation of people intent on maintaining the free-for-all at our polling places. 
Randy Hunt
East Sandwich

To anyone who claims that voter fraud is not happening, or is so rare that it is not an issue: The fact is that we cannot know the extent of voter fraud in Sandwich, the commonwealth or the country when we do nothing to ensure that only registered, living voters are voting. I could claim that everyone obeys the speed limit on Route 6 because I’ve never bothered to check. It doesn’t make it true.

But let me give you a better example that is supported by before-and-after statistics. In 1987, the IRS initiated a change to Form 1040, adding boxes to include the social security numbers of dependents, which they then ran against the SSA’s database to match up. Seven million dependents that were reported in 1986 miraculously vanished in 1987. Many argued before this change that there were probably occurrences of fraudulently reported dependents, but that it was not widespread and didn’t rise to the level that necessitated this change.

Weigh in on this issue by voting in the poll at the right.


  1. One who votes once per election.......January 19, 2012 at 4:32 PM

    Randy, per usual your right on top of the problem as well as the solution. I am afraid though that it won't pass. Our overwelming majority in our legislature will cry foul. Now there's what we should be looking to ask, why? Could it be that they have already paid their voters to vote to the left of right?

  2. Please pursue this issue. I know that after a few email correspondence with Martha Coakley's office, they have no interest at all in making a seemingly harmless act take place at the polling places. I'd be happy to share this correspondence. Also, I'm wondering if Tyler White, Sandwich Town Clerk, has made any progress in this matter. I know I saw an article that he was also trying to get ID's shown. It's old-fashioned to believe that people don't have any access to obtain one. I needed mine to buy cough medicine the other day! Your solution seems a little too easy mixed with a bit too much common sense for some people to grasp. But good luck in your pursuit and know that there are people out there who are behind you in this very important matter to the future of American elections.

  3. Great letter Randy, I couldn't agree more.

  4. Carl Johansen would state to Mr. White would it be possible to have the town charter include such wording in regards to having a picture ID to vote???

  5. Carl,

    There is already a regulation that allows Clerks to require ID at the polls; unfortunately the legal interruption is in dispute by varying legal counsels and the Secretary of States Office. Having something in the Town Charter is not the proper channel in which to implement such a procedure. I support legislation currently before the Legislature that would require ID across the Commonwealth as a whole.

    It amazes me the kick back by some in society on this issue. I have yet to run into someone with a sound argument as to why IDs should not be provided while voting. The video recently released after the NH primary clearly show just how easy it is to engage in voter fraud in states without an ID requirement. The gentlemen in the video could have voting a dozen times without a problem.

    If a hundred people did this in an organized effort during an election it could total 1,200 fraudulent votes for a particular candidate over another. This could definitely sway an election. Because the ballots are not marked with a voters name there is no way of telling which ballot are which even if the fraud is discovered after the fact.

    Food for thought,


  6. Carl Johansen would state to Mr. White I will submit to your opinion in regards to Town charter not being the way to go, but it is a food for thought . What can this hurt, if this is put before town meeting for a vote?
    I agree whole heartly that a photo ID is the way to go and in my opinion would assure a better process going forward. If doctors and stores require some photo ID for protection of the process, why not voters as well??

  7. Do it the easy way firstJanuary 25, 2012 at 4:27 PM

    @ 1/24 9:21. It does not have to be a part of the charter necessarily to be the law of Sandwich. It could also go before the voters in the form of a by-law, that is if it is legal to do either.

  8. For years I have believed we needed Voter ID's.
    As long as we have democrats leading the state, it will never happen. Voter fraud is prevalent
    because there are no security mechanisms or oversight implemented.

    How do people go thru security at the airports yet they have no picture ID? Right......


I monitor all comments. As long as there are no personally defamatory statements and/or foul language, I'll post your comment. For this reason, your comment will not appear instantaneously. To comment without registering, choose Name/URL and type a screen name (or your real name if you like) into the Name field. Leave the URL field blank.