“None,” said Cameron Quinn, a former state elections official who from 2011 until last year was the general registrar for Fairfax County, testifying in the sixth day of a trial before U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson in a lawsuit filed by the Democratic Party of Virginia and two voters challenging the state law. Fairfax is the state’s largest jurisdiction and has 700,000 registered voters.
Justin Riemer, a former member of the Virginia State Board of Elections and Donald Palmer, the former secretary of the board, also testified Tuesday that they were not aware of anyone unable to vote because of the photo requirement.To make matters worse for the plaintiffs, several witnesses spoke directly against assertions that the purpose of the law was to suppress votes by minority and young voters:
[ . . . ] Karen L. Owen, an assistant professor of public administration at Reinhardt University in Georgia, offered alternative reasons for why General Assembly members may have voted for the law.
She said legislators may have considered broad public support for a voter identification law, citing polls from the Pew Research Center and Quinnipiac University; were responding to constituents’ concerns about voter fraud; hoped to ensure public confidence in ballots that were cast; sought to enact a best practice; or wanted to prevent voting fraud.
Daniel J. Palazzolo, a professor of political science at the University of Richmond, similarly testified that there was not enough evidence to conclude that the law was passed to suppress minority votes.As we continue to move through these unnecessary trials, the presidential primary is seeing significant spikes in voter turnout across the country. One thing has become abundantly clear: the left’s claims of disenfranchisement are beyond grossly exaggerated.