Hillary is wrong about election fraud

Contrary to Mrs. Clinton’s characterization, no one concerned about ensuring the integrity of elections is talking about an “epidemic” of election fraud. However, as the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in 2008 in Crawford v. Marion County, “Flagrant examples of such fraud…have been documented throughout this nation’s history by respected historians and journalists.” As the Supreme Court concluded, and as Ballot Box 13 demonstrated, “Not only is the risk of voter fraud real but that it could affect the outcome of a close election.”

Mrs. Clinton may claim this is all ancient history. But last month, just 350 miles south of the Texas Southern stage, two campaign workers in Donna, Texas, were sentenced to serve prison time for bribing voters with cocaine, beer, cigarettes and cash during a 2012 election. U.S. federal district court Judge Randy Crane found nothing “phantom” about the charges. During the sentencing, he said, “It’s really terrible, this election fraud. Our country requires that our voting process be clear and free of fraud for democracy to work.”

Texas may not have an “epidemic” of voter fraud, but in a 2013 commission election in Weslaco, Texas — just four miles east of Donna — dozens of fraudulent votes were cast. The final margin of victory was only 16 votes. A state appeals court recently upheld a ruling voiding that election.

If Mrs. Clinton wants to see more examples of fraud convictions in Texas and elsewhere, she can find them here. But even this list of election fraud cases is incomplete because of the unwillingness of too many prosecutors to prosecute these cases even when they are uncovered. That is why it is important to have measures in place that deter fraud.

At Texas Southern, Mrs. Clinton spent most of her time attacking the state’s voter ID law. She charged that voter ID laws (all of which provide a free ID to the few who don’t have one) keep people out of the polls and suppresses the votes of minority voters. Yet all of the turnout data from states that have voter ID laws in place lends no support for that mistaken claim.

Voter ID is not the only solution to deterring and preventing election fraud, and no one claims it can prevent every kind of fraud that is unfortunately committed in too many elections. States need to take other steps like requiring voter ID for absentee balloting, as well as in-person voting; requiring individuals who register to provide proof of citizenship; running data comparisons between their statewide voter registration list and the lists of other states to find individuals who are registered in more than one state; and doing a better job of cleaning up their lists by taking off voters who have died, moved away, are in prison or are not U.S. citizens.

The American people certainly don’t agree with Hillary Clinton’s opposition to voter ID. As the Examiner reported, the latest Rasmussen poll shows that 76 percent of Americans support photo ID as a common sense reform. Heck, even a large majority (58 percent) within Ms. Clinton’s own party support it.

It would be a shame if this sort of unjustified opposition to voter ID made it harder for states to adopt this needed, common-sense reform. Such opposition can only undermine the good government objective of protecting the security and integrity of the election process.

Hans A. von Spakovsky is a Senior Legal Fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Along with John Fund, he is the coauthor of “Who’s Counting? How Fraudsters and Bureaucrats Put Your Vote at Risk” (Encounter 2012) and “Obama’s Enforcer: Eric Holder’s Justice Department” (HarperCollins/Broadside 2014). Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.