The author uses unnecessary insults and derogatory language ("inept crew of thugs") to bolster his points, which only diminishes the value of his argument in my view. On these grounds alone, I have to give this story low marks, regardless of its potential merits. By demonizing Republicans, this opinion piece accomplishes precious little, other than fuel the flames of partisan finger-pointing. If Salon wishes to publish more incendiary material like this, I would encourage them to prominently link to other opinion pieces representing opposing viewpoints, preferrably more reasonable than this one.

The opinion piece presents a one-sided, but important exploration into the issue systemic efforts to suppress voter turnout.

Very one sided, but considering the subject, it's very hard to find an opposing viewpoint or incidences where Democrats are gaming the system.

A mix of supported and unsupported claims, although I don't see anything that is false. Well written, but more complete evidence might make it seem less like a hit job on Republicans.

Yup. Very important subject well-presented. It's opinion. But very well defended, and not very controversial. It underlies the corruption that Attorney General Gonzales is embroiled in. The better alternative news services have been reporting this for some time. And David, your logic does not make sense. You can still have a decent turnout (though it was less than 60% as I recall) and have this trend still hold up. It's not like Bush was elected by a landslide. Indeed, his success may be partly attributable to voter suppression.

The main constitutional point and the threat to that CONSTITUTION is how thw AG office/staff are no longer seen as or operating as the "people's" lawyers but as a political weapon of the "governing party", in this case the Republican party and as lawyers for the president. Whatever the task/program emanating from this, it is a distortion/abortion of the basic reason for the existence of the AG office/department and the "voter fraud crusade" is an unfortunate, to say the least, consequence of this politicization.

This is a very biased opinion article. Worse, it ignores documented cases of voter fraud favoring the Democrats. Most observers, including the press, believe there was substantial fraud in the 2004 Presidential election in Milwaukee, where there were more votes than voters, and where 70,000 of the 270,000 voters registered on Election Day, an unprecendentedly large number. See for example, http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=324933. There clearly was fraud in Saint Louis in 2000, where the polls were held open long after the normal closing time to allow additional voters to be found. The author does not even credit John Ashcroft for refusing to challenge the election of a dead man, which is against the U.S. Constitution, ... More »

As a work of fiction, this piece by Mr. Epps is perhaps of passing interest. It recites any number of anecdotical stories about nasty conservatives who exaggerate instances of "voter fraud" in order to enhance their political base. Of course, it conveniently fails to note the literally dozens of instances of voter fraud brought to a conclusion by the appropriate legal authorities, including numerous such instances by the infamous oragnization, ACORN.

The story comes across to me as a one sided. Even the conventional wisdom in the story is wrong. This statement, " It's widely known that Republicans do better when the turnout is lighter, whiter, older and richer; minorities, young people and the poor are easy game for hoaxes and intimidation.", has been proven wrong in the 2004 elections. The highest voter turnout in recent memory and the republicans did very well.