You are free to live with nearsightedness, but I shouldn't have to suffer from your nearsightedness. Over 12,000 voting age Anabaptists [Amish, Hutterites, Mennonites] live in Missouri. Anabaptists have doctrine that discourages the posing for "graven images". Most have negotiated with states to substitute a finger print on an ID in lieu of a photo image. What'll it cost to train all election poll workers in the reading of fingerprints so all can vote? We have a considerable number of elderly without photo ID, and this creates a "Catch-22" for them. In order to get a birth certificate, you need a photo ID. In order to get a photo ID, you need a birth certificate. My 68 year old Mother-In-Law, born in Tennessee, has no birth certificate. She's gotten by with a Baptismal Certificate to date. Tennessee offers birth certificates to those born after Jan. 1949. Her drivers license was not renewed in 2004 due to vision problems. While it may be possible to someday get her a voter ID, it is an unreasonable hurdle to place in front of someone to exercise a fundamental constitutional right.

Please show or cite evidence that election fraud is a problem in big city "downtowns". Also, is election fraud the same as voter fraud?
Everybody has to show evidence of eligibility to vote - there are large posters at the polling places with the documentation requirements.

Hey, getting on a plane, checking a book out of the library are not protected rights under the constitution on the United States of America. Voting is!!!! Voter fraud is not a problem in this country. If it does happen it's extremely rare and isn't done with the frequency that would call for voter I.D. laws that constrict the voting rights of any citizen.

Who are you, R U ashamed of that? I bet you don't have those initials, alone on your voter I D.

I see a comment has been deleted. What is the criteria for deleting comments? What will cause a comment to be deleted?

That is ludicrous, but a constant talking point for Democrats.

What don't you get dude!! Not everyone is able to have a photo I.D. Many elderly people and poor people don't have them or even need them.
We shouldn't be trying to make it more difficult to vote, it should be very easy. I'm sure you probably were so proud when the Iraqi's got to vote after Bush sent so many of them to their death. I wonder how many photo I.D.'s voters over there have. Shouldn't you be upset about that. Silence..............

Sounds like the Republicans want to institute a poll tax... Why not require a citizen to own 5 acres of land to vote?

Aaaahhh. The race card. Anyone that doesn't agree, is a racist. Exactly how does requiring everyone that votes to have a picture ID, suppress minorities?

Baloney! It's a ploy to suppress illegal votes! There's no evidence of minority suppression except where unions and the black pathers are present at polling places.

Statistics show that if photo ID is required it is minorities, elderly and poor voters that are suppressed.
So to respond to G. Hu - If you live in a city you don't need a car and thus don't need a license. If you look old enough you don't need ID to buy a drink. If I set up my banking years ago I don't need a picture ID.
Why require photo ID now? Proponents should cite actual evidence instead of "beliefs".

This is not a ploy to suppress anybody but people who vote illegally. Why would you support that? I keep seeing people saying there aren't that many cases of voter fraud, when there are pets and dead people voting all over the country. There ARE issues with voter fraud, you just have to look to find them, but then again, who controls the media?. Also, you hear these people talking about how the elderly & the poor wouldn't be able to get an ID, that's the dumbest argument there is. If these people want to drive a car, buy a home, rent a home, pick-up a child from school, get a job, catch a fish, hunt a turkey, etc. ANY of these things require an ID or at the very least a liscense (which takes an ID to get). That argument has ZERO validity. The point is, Dems don't want people to have to have an ID to vote, but for EVERYTHING else. Why? It isn't hard to get an ID, and any attempt to say otherwise, just isn't true.
In addition, if you disagree with them, will call you a name, and dismiss you & your opinion. Using words like racist or agist. Well, of course, that's because THEY can't think of people in any other way. THEY are the ones who have to separate everyone into little categories for their tiny little minds can keep up. They all cried about voter fraud in Florida a while back, but now are CONVINCED it just isn't happening. Why is it that they always stand in front of the poor & elderly when this subject comes up? Is that where they are hiding those "extra" votes?

Voter ID requirements has been an issue long before the Tea Party existed. How foolish you sound. I am a minority. How does a requirement to show my ID to vote suppress me?

G. Hu - If you were a citizen without photo ID your vote would be suppressed, minority or not. The statistics are pretty clear in the states that have to have DOJ approval to change their voting policies - many people would be excluded.

Somebody please provide evidence - If voter fraud is such a big problem where are the arrests, the charges filed?

Again, as always, blown out of purportion. Just so you know, the Tea Party wants a SMALLER, MORE HONEST, ACCOUNTABLE government. How is this a Tea Party thing? You've been sold a bill of goods. You don't even know what your Party OR your 'enemy' believes in. GET AN ID, quit using it as a flemsy excuse. It isn't hard & it doesn't suppress anyone. Endless taxes & regulation is what is supressing people. Not an ID, fool.

Seddon's hysteria over this issue only proves the point -this is all about the partisan politics/voter suppression #game.

Photography has been readily available for over a a century - yet suddenly we want everybody to have photograph ID in order to vote. Hmmmmmm. Yet we don't want this done in a uniform way via a national level photo ID because that violates the State's Rights.

Not that I mind being photographed for govt purposes, at all - but where are all the libertarians who typically ramble on about govt intrusions in liberties?

I totally agree Melinda, thanks for your common sense comment

Voting is a right to all citizens of these United States rather they have an ID or not. I on the other hand always have my ID handy when entering to vote. That is just me. That doesn't mean I am going to make it harder for another citizen because at this time in their life they do not have the abilities to attain one. It hard enough to get citizens out there to vote in the first place. Why put another barrier. May we be a people of encouragement.

Melinda, anyways????? And YOU vote!?!. Maybe intelligence should be the standard, not a photo.

You don't know that, Melinda. You don't know why any one human being doesn't have a photo ID. I wish people weren't always so quick to judge others without knowing facts.

We've again left the point, thanks to RDBet. I don't believe in government intrusion. But I also believe there should be some way to make sure that same government was fairly chosen. Not sure what the fight is over that. Pick any method you want. There's nothing wrong with voters IDing themselves. If you want to make up some hysteria or have a problem with photography, it's an irrelevent distraction as usual. It doesn't matter what method anyone comes up with, you will have an issue with it, because you need your illegal votes.

You're mistaking voter registration fraud/errors for voter fraud, which is rare. And as to the Dems committing it, the latest case of actual voter fraud was Charlie White, the Republican Secretary of State of Indiana who was convicted on 6 of 7 counts in early February.
Furthermore: "The Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) in an attempt to discredit a NAACP report this week on the lack of voter fraud evidence has bolstered the view that there is no need for voter ID laws.... The RNLA produced data showing 46 states and various convictions for voter fraud. Viewing the data for the period 2000-2010, the report by its own account shows there is no link between voter fraud in states and the need for stricter voter ID laws. The data shows that during the entire 10 year period, 21 states had only 1 or 2 convictions for some form of voter irregularity. And some of these 21 states have the strictest form of voter ID laws based on a finding of 2 or less convictions in ten years. Five states had a total of three convictions over a ten year period. Rhode Island had 4 convictions for the same 10 years. Taking a close look at the RNLA data shows 30 states, including the District of Columbia had 3 or less voter fraud convictions for a 10 year period."
http://www.alternet.org/news/153435/republican_lawyers_group's_own_study_undercuts_vote_fraud_claims

These laws are a solution in search of a problem.

So you reported your "fact" to the election commission? I didn't think so.

Again, voting is a right protected under the constitution. Cashing a check isn't, neither is belonging to a community center. How come you Republicans can't understand this basic fact. Quit equating all these other things that require a photo I.D. with the right to vote. You sound stupid when you all keep saying these things. Please!!!

You can keep repeating that line, or you could actually look up the case. Which would indicate you are wrong, at least at the federal level.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board

You ARE kidding yourself. If the Republicans are the ones committing this fraud, you'd want it to stop, right?

No, a photo ID will not stop fraudulent voting any more that a law against fraudulent voting stops fraudulent voting. That doesn't mean we need to make it any easier to do - and a photo ID is a pretty simple solution to make it more difficult. Yes, fake IDs exist, but I'd bet pretty big money they exist mainly for the purposes of alcohol purchases, credit card/check fraud, and illegal immigration, not voting. It would be the rare person who got a fake ID for the purposes of voter fraud - there's just no money in it.

You and others do have a point that it is a rarely prosecuted crime precisely for the reason you bring up - most elections are not going to be determined by the fraud amount, therefore it is essentially a victimless crime and one that is not worth the effort to prosecute. It's not that it doesn't exist, it's that no one finds it worthwhile to prosecute, therefore no one looks for it.

However, it close elections, it can very much make a difference, and that is why making it more difficult is essential, people need to have faith in the integrity of the election system, even close votes. Do you have any doubt that if the NY Times had turned up 500 fraudulent Bush votes in Florida in 2000, not impossible in a state that size, the tune would be much different?

If fraud didn't work, why has Cook County been doing it for years?

Yeah Nick, photo I.D.'s were required by our fore fathers. It's in the constitution under.......let me see........oh yeah, NO WHERE!!!! The constitution calls for voter rights to be unabridged. You righties are always claiming to be lovers and protectors of the constitution.......except when it doesn't fit your lame arguments.

Chris, Allisa is assuming that African American's who vote for Obama do no possess a form of ID. There: I was brave enough to say it. Shame on Allisa for putting that ridiculous idea out in the open like that.

Do people live such insular lives that they can not fathom a person without a photo ID...or is it that they Can fathom people without photo IDs and just prefer that person not be able to vote. No idea on that Obama part. As far as the demographics of who doesn't have photo ids - here's some info:
http://www.npr.org/2012/01/28/146006217/why-new-photo-id-laws-mean-some-wont-vote
"Who Are They?
By all estimates, those least likely to have a government-issued photo ID fall into one of four categories: the elderly, minorities, the poor and young adults aged 18 to 24. The Brennan Center estimates that 18 percent of all seniors and 25 percent of African-Americans don't have picture IDs.

Seniors traditionally have been the most consistent voting group, particularly in absentee balloting. Turnout among minorities has steadily risen over the years and reached a record in 2008 (when the rate of black turnout virtually equaled that of whites for the first time). Also in 2008, turnout of under-24-year-olds reached its highest rate since 1992.

Why Don't They Have Photo IDs?
Many people have multiple forms of identification, including those that display their pictures — like employee badges or credit and debit cards. But states with strict voter ID laws require people to have certain photo IDs issued by govern
That typically means driver's licenses. But many seniors and many poor people don't drive. In big cities, many minorities rely on publictransit. And many...
"

"A recent study by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University, which opposes such laws, estimated that the new laws could harm 5 million voters. About 18 percent of seniors and 25 percent of African-Americans don't have photo identification, according to the study." http://www.npr.org/2012/01/11/145044060/political-battle-brewing-over-new-voter-id-laws. And the elderly may not be able to get their birth certificates, which they may have lost or never had, without, guess what, a valid photo id; in other words, the perfect Catch 22. And btw, absentee voting doesn't require a photo or any other id and is therefore a far bigger potential source of fraud.

Comment removed here for masked profanity. No need for that.

http://www.npr.org/2012/01/28/146006217/why-new-photo-id-laws-mean-some-wont-vote

If you're going to call out one study, you better be prepared to hear the counter to it.

http://rnla.org/blogs/blogs/public/archive/2011/11/08/don-t-believe-the-brennan-center-s-study-on-voter-id.aspx

I haven't read any of the studies, so I'm not going to comment on their strengths or weaknesses, but it's not as cut and dried as the anti-ID side would have you think.

More in reply to Creve Coeur Dad but his post has no Reply button.
Furthermore: "The Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) in an attempt to discredit a NAACP report this week on the lack of voter fraud evidence has bolstered the view that there is no need for voter ID laws.... The RNLA produced data showing 46 states and various convictions for voter fraud. Viewing the data for the period 2000-2010, the report by its own account shows there is no link between voter fraud in states and the need for stricter voter ID laws. The data shows that during the entire 10 year period, 21 states had only 1 or 2 convictions for some form of voter irregularity. And some of these 21 states have the strictest form of voter ID laws based on a finding of 2 or less convictions in ten years. Five states had a total of three convictions over a ten year period. Rhode Island had 4 convictions for the same 10 years. Taking a close look at the RNLA data shows 30 states, including the District of Columbia had 3 or less voter fraud convictions for a 10 year period."
http://www.alternet.org/news/153435/republican_lawyers_group's_own_study_undercuts_vote_fraud_claims

These laws are a solution in search of a problem.

One of the studies referenced in the RNLA link from CreveCoeurDad is by Jeffrey Milyo of Mizzou:

The Effects of Photographic Identification on Voter Turnout in Indiana: A County-Level Analysis

It contains some very far-fetched, to me, reasoning to help argue that photo ID increased turnout:

[V]oter identification reforms may also instill greater confidence in the electoral process among eligible voters, making them more willing to participate in elections.

So some voters don't participate now just because others don't have to use photo ID?

And he says this about persons without proper identification:

some of those persons may be eligible voters and others will be ineligible voters

His contrasting use of "may be" and "will be" may just be sloppy, or it may reveal his agenda.

Milyo notes that voter ID laws increase the effort required to vote "(at least one time, anyway)". The Missouri bills (SB 3, SB 442) say "nonexpired" identification, so in
Missouri the effort would be required every 3 or 6 years (to age 70).

The paper isn't listed by Milyo himself in the Selected Publications section of his web page. I can't find it on his website at all. So he's apparently not proud of it.

Patch limits comments to 1500 characters, so stay tuned for part 2!

part 2:

And it's not just him or me. As far as his results go, he compared voter turnout in two elections, 2002 and 2006. He was looking for such a small effect that I expect the data could have been twisted to show any conclusion. Alvarez, Bailey (at Washu), and Katz agree:

"However, we must be concerned about any claims regarding the impact on particular sub-populations, such as minorities, from any study that uses only aggregate-level data. As is well known, these ecological studies suffer from aggregation bias that can lead to wildly incorrect inferences"

Here's a more detailed discussion on why Milyo might not be objective:

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5845

Milyo: http://brennan.3cdn.net/52cdaf4251969e2042_vnm6ivu54.pdf
It used to be at http://web.missouri.edu/~milyoj/files/Report%2010-2007%20revised.pdf, but is not there now.

Alvarez, et al: http://www.hss.caltech.edu/SSPapers/sswp1267R.pdf

Voter ID is going to happen over time. But as of the moment, it is yet another front for partisan agenda (more like a vendetta) - to repress votes from unfavored demographic group.

And frankly, I don't care about these lists of where people show photo ids. What does that prove about current voter fraud?

Did you walk to the school? Doubt it? A "few" shutins? How about millions. ALL citizens should be able to vote without burdensome and unnecessary blockades put in their way. Your experience registering your child is just part of the drill and has nothing to do with voting.

I have no idea what your point is. Other than you don't trust NPR and it's sources.

Please provide some facts. NPR has published statistics that can be checked. RDBet has provided the NPR stats. I think NPR think of themselves as journalists and hold themselves to reporting standards like having sources.

Where are the stats that voter fraud is such a large problem? Where are the sources?

Please follow your own guidance and do some questioning. I have a feeling people are lying to us and creating issues out of air.

Your point is still not taken. I don't put blind trust in the NPR article. I certainly do not put blind trust in the politicians and their hopelessly devoted followers who have taken a fancy to this initiative.

When I ran for City Council last year there were over 10,000 registered voters in my Ward. There are not even that many folks living in Ward 3! Sadly voter fraud does happen. A photo id--it doesn't have to be a driver's license, it can be a state id or a student id is a good idea. You have to show a photo id to get a check cashed so REALLY this would not be that big of a requirement. Just MHO...

Elizabeth, so the voter rolls have not been cleaned up in your city. How many voted? It is a problem to keep the rolls in good condition. If I move to a different state what agency informs your city that I am now registered there and should be removed? This is not evidence of fraud or voter irregularity.

I have shopped in stores that know me and did not require ID to pay with a check. What does that show?

Assuming Akin's name was found in the book by poll workers.
How then was that fraud, unless he also voted again in his new precinct ??

I'm often asked for my ID not only to write a check, but also to use my credit card. I don't mind a bit because I know it's for my security. Likewise, I don't mind showing an ID to vote. What's to keep someone from using someone else's voter card at the polls. Your deceased relatives could keep voting for years so long as someone is at that address to get the card.

Voters with no ID could call their local county for an absentee ballot.
1 sent to 1 address, no ID necessary.

Here is your number one valid reason, FAKE PHOTO ID’s. Where there is a will to vote fraudulently there is a way Photo ID’s will not stop that.

A national ID law makes sense -uniform rules under the consititution to protect the rights of all Americans. But good luck with that - states rights are the common ploy to circumvent individual rights. A bit of irony over the political group using this ploy today.

It's absurd to call everyone who think photo ID at the polls is a good thing people who are only interested in voter suppression because they vote for the other party. I don't care if fraud is all over the place are not. What's the best way to ensure it doesn't happen? If it's photo ID, make it happen. Get these people a photo ID. There has to be a way for those three old people to prove who they are in order to get the ID. If enough time is given between the new law and the election, this shouldn't be a problem. The very vast majority of people could easily get an ID if it was free to them if they wanted to vote. The exceptions can be managed.

For the 25% of African-American's talked about, none was mentioned as being unable to do so, just that they don't have one. Same with the young. Perhaps the poor or those in rural areas would have trouble traveling to get one, and the elderly might find it difficult to prove who they are, but this is exactly why some sort of proof is needed. It would also be just as easy to commit fraud with their information.

For the record, the way absentee voting is done is already a problem ripe with possibilities for voter fraud. Fix that as well. Again, it doesn't matter if convictions on voter fraud are happening are not. Curtis' comment below is well taken. Finances matter, and a cost effective way to fix this is necessary. However, leaving loopholes, no matter if they're being exploited currently, isn't a wise choice.

RDBet, You've done some research, and that's honorable. However, every statement accuses people who want an ID requirement, of trying to keep a certain segment from voting. Since the only people that those folks want to keep from voting, are those casting illegal votes. By association, you are saying that entire segment is casting illegal votes. I don't think that's how you want to represent that segment. This isn't a racial issue. It isn't an agist issue. It's an honesty issue.

I would like to know why the argument is constantly made, that these folks can get out to vote, but not to get an ID. We're not asking them to do anything, or get anything that it wouldn't be a benefit for them to have in the first place. What else might they be able to do, WITH an ID, that they can't do now without one? Likely plenty. An ID would actually be a benefit for that segment of the population, NOT a detriment. Whoever told you otherwise, is trying to manipulate you. And it worked.

States already provide ID's, implimentation is not difficult. Proving who you are is required everywhere else. NOTHING new would have to be set-up for 99.999% of voters. They cost $11. Not quite the financial crisis these folks want to make it sound like. Make it a liscense. Like hunting, fishing, driving, etc. which DO require an ID, but don't suppress rights OR discriminate. Discrimination is NOT the issue. NOR is the cost. The overall cost would be less than the amount we threw away JUST to Solyndra.

But that means citizen Charles Manson can vote, and my 4 year old. You don't even have to register to vote -- that really should streamline things.... Lol. Nice to bow out of the "discussion" on a laugher.

Leave it to the political ideology of those like RDBet, take what you said and apply silliness to it so they don't have to listen to common-sense. THE LIKES OF CHARLES MANSON & 4 YEAR-OLDS ALREADY VOTE, THAT'S WHY SOME OF US BELIEVE IN A CHANGE OF POLICY! As he laughs his way out of having to address that, he allows prisoners, minors, pets, etc. to continue voting. Sometimes more than once.

More all-caps hysterics from Devon. Trickdarter says prove to me you are a citizen- bringing in the boogieman of illegals coming into the nation to steal election. (another pet topic for Devon, surely.)

Lest I remind you, there are differences from being a citizen and registered voter. And a fake citizen is hardly likely to risk exposing themselves by going to vote, but that is just a guess.

Tea Party hacks jumping the shark once again.

The GOP are not a bunch of racists. Those who feel the need to bring race into everything are the racists. That card is only pulled regularly on ONE side of the aisle. The side that created the KKK, fought civil-rights, shot MLK, and continues to enslave a dependent population. That's right, THE LEFT side of the aisle. Look it up. This myth that the Republicans are racist, was posed by LBJ, when he said "We'll have those ______ voting Democrat for 30 years" - and he was right. The entire population has been made to believe that those enslaving them are their saviours. It's sad, but true. See Alphonzo Rachel.

I believe you are dismissing the thousands & thousands of offenses by ACORN, the Dems' terrorist friend. Repeat offenders that of course are not mentioned at all, but you got your attack in on the Reps, good job. But you still don't want people to have to vote legally. Which party is it that are virtually fighting this til the death? That should tell you something.

2007 in St. Louis 8 ACORN members plead guilty to voter fraud.

2009 in Cahokia two members of Cahokia’s village board plead guilty to charges of voter fraud. Not Missouri, but right across the river.

There also was an issue in St. Louis City in 2001 where a lawsuit was filed to extend the voting time as the polling places were being reported as confused and hectic all in an effort to prevent people from voting. It was later discovered that the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit had been dead for a year. I am sure there are more examples out there these were I ones I found with a quick search.

Diebold may make the equipment, but doesn't the election authority program them for the elections and then validate the results? Not sure how they would factor in on this discussion.

I don't disagree with that notion Michael. I'm not a diebold conspiracy theorist, nor election authorities. That doesn't mean I have blind trust in them either...

But it seems if some party (let's say - democrats, so all the tea party rage-aholics here stay happy) wanted to rig an election, a massive coaltion of people going the fake ID route should be the least of our worries. Heck, you can't get most people to vote, much less do so fraudulently.

It would be more likely be done by hacking the machines or by some partisan county clerk etc. Yet, here we are, in this election year babbling on about people posing as someone else. Who is going to coordinate this supposed fraud, now that ACORN is gone. Maybe Obama himself, lol. You tea party folks need to get a grip, find other hobbies and new straw men.

There goes the same old programmed rhetoric. Little old ladies, the poor. You forgot gays, blacks, women & soldiers. Those are the people that you're supposed to say that anyone who disagrees with you hates, aren't they?

Did Diebold take $95 billion tax-payer dollars & insider trading information to get even wealthier? Or was that the President's boy Buffett? Again, off the subject, innaccurate, and irrelevent.

In fact, the only thing those two topics have in common, is the fact that again, you only have part of the story accompanied by an accusation or two.

Now, what's the REAL reason you like illegal elections? You keep wanting to distract from the point, or talk about the 'method' or 'terminology'. Look, do it however you want to make it legal. That's all this is about. Nothing else. Legal Elections. Any attempt to steer it somewhere else futile. So again, like always, you can now attack me or symantics, and not the point.

Devon, control your tangential rages and false inferences about my political bent for a moment and answer a question.

Should there be a national photo ID for voting (and illegal immigration factor)?
Would this pass Constitutional muster?

I believe (and might be wrong) that the election authority tries to keep a balance of the two main parties (dem/repub) at all voting locations and during the counting of votes to prevent what you are stating. This included multiple people validating the results. I am sure they also have procedures with programming the machines to prevent "hacking". Once again not sure how Diebold factors in. Also, county clerks would not have access to the voting machines.

Michael, again I'm not a diebold conspiracist. But was pointing out that there would be more efficient ways to stuff a ballot box than this fanciful notion of a collaborative voter ID fraud.

And regards to county clerks and secretary's of states - Google "Kathly Nicklaus" - either she's an example of political fraud, or grossly negligent ineptitude by a county clerk.

Okay, I was confused when you stated " I'm wondering where is the concern over security and political connections of Diebold" and then you stated "That doesn't mean I have blind trust in them either". I read that as though Diebold was rigging elections. As for the clerk in Wisconsin I can not speak to as in Missouri an election board runs elections.

I think the jest here is there are rules and procedures to, hopefully, prevent tampering with elections. There is no such check for the person at the ballot box as there is no way to confirm the voter is who they say they are with out requiring some form of id. It could take just a few votes to swing an election (think local elections that have sometimes 500 total voters come out).

They plead guilty to voter fraud as they (you have it backwards or I do) were paying people to fill out a voter card and then go vote. A majority voted several times and under false names (hence the fraud part). ID cards (unless they had fake ids) should have prevented that.

Seven examples for you involving just ACORN:

2006
•St Louis City election officials discover almost 1,500 fraudulent voter registration cards turned in by ACORN workers (AP, October 11, 2006)
•St Louis County election officials find hundreds of fraudulent address changes, most of which were submitted by ACORN (Post-Dispatch, October 25, 2006)
•Four ACORN workers indicted for submitting as many as 1,000 fraudulent voter registration cards in the Kansas City area Each later pleads guilty (KC Star, November 2, 2006)
2007
•Kansas City ACORN worker indicted for election fraud and identity theft (AP, January 6, 2007)
2008
•Eight employees of ACORN plead guilty to election fraud in federal court. Their activities included submitting registration cards with forged signatures and false names. (Post-Dispatch, April, 2, 2008)
•Jackson County reports 100s of fraudulent registrations from ACORN (AP, October 9, 2008)
•ACORN worker pleads guilty to federal charges for submitting fraudulent voter registrations. (AP, March 24, 2009)

This seems a bit like the tobacco companies claim a decade ago that there was no evidence that smoking caused health problems. Owning a gun is a constitutional right, too. I think you have to have an ID (and a background check) to buy one.