Why does anyone take these people even remotely seriously?
John Fund, Wall Street Journal columnist and long time voter fraud fearmongerer, is already crying foul in the election that’s become a proxy fight over Gov. Scott Walker’s (R) assault on collective bargaining rights — and increasingly looks like a win for progressives…. “Apparently there were up 10,000 ballots in Dane [county] that just voted on the Supreme Court race,” Fund said, “which is bizarre because there was an extremely close race for mayor of Madison an extremely close race for Dane County Executive.” … “It’s passing strange that you would have perhaps thousands of voters going to the polling place and just voting in this one election,” he said today.
Well, gosh, John, did it not occur to you that the Supreme Court race turned into a national cause célèbre? That it virtually overnight turned into a proxy for one of the most contentious political debates we’ve seen in years? Nobody outside Dane County cares who won those local races – and a lot of people inside Dane County don’t care either. Everybody cares about the Supreme Court race. It seems perfectly sensible to me that someone who perhaps doesn’t pay close attention to local politics – and believe it or not, such people do exist – might nonetheless have decided to vote in the Supreme Court election because they thought it might actually matter.
I’ve said it before and I’ll said it again: “voter fraud” is right-wing paranoia, nothing more. Nobody has ever shown satisfactory evidence that it actually happens, and that’s most likely because it doesn’t.
Usually, it’s something like this:
Or this:
Indiana Secretary of State Charlie White indicted, faces 7 felony counts
<
p>Or this:
We wouldn’t be hearing from wingnuts, but rather from perfectly honest, rational people with only the best interest of the country at heart while they rant feverishly about the Kochs.
Voter suppression is what you usually hear from the left when they are losing a close election. Sometimes you just have to admit you lost.
<
p>Any time I hear the right rolling out the pretend voter fraud meme, it’s always a good sign.
has been a GOP strategy for years. The accusations of voter fraud are used to give the veneer of credibility to voter caging and other GOP suppression tactics. And what is called voter fraud by the GOP is, at best, voter registration fraud that doesn’t result in fradulent votes being cast.
<
p>Voter supression generally targets minorities and the poor. The Virginia Board of Elections found evidence of voter suppression in Virginia and handed it over to the FBI.
<
p>Evidence of GOP voter caging is thoroughly documented.
<
p>In spite of CMD’s suggestion that one party is as bad as the other, that’s not the case.
this is another unfortunate example of the sort of false equivalence that has grown quite popular recently.
I got pushback recently for suggesting that ID should be required because it would be a slight inconvenience, while I thought it was a small safeguard against any inappropriate voting. Fact of the matter is, ID would also PROTECT the voter because something like caging wouldn’t work. If someone at the polls challenged your residency or other factors affecting your eligibility, all you would have to do is flash your ID to confirm that you can vote.
because absentee voters won’t get the same sort of scrutiny.
<
p>There is zero evidence of people voting fraudulently in any case, so checking ids adds extra process to solve an imaginary problem.
<
p>I don’t see how voter ids prevent caging unless you are thinking of some sort of id that is issued directly by your local town and not simply a drivers license or passport, and in that case you can bet that thousands of people will forget to bring along their special voter id on election day since there is no point in carrying it around the rest of the year.
…in which case license, passport, state non-driving ID, would all be fine. Isn’t caging based on challenging the residency of a voter based on mail being returned? The ID would clear that up. This no-evidence argument I find naive. In my town I could easily claim to be someone else on the list and nobody would know the difference. If they did eventually find out and arrest me there’s still the issue of my vote has been cast. My ballot can’t be pulled from the box and discarded because there’s no way to tell which ballot was cast fraudulently. As for absentees, there are signatures on the envelope that help or we can shift to early vote at town hall system. Also, it’s harder to claim to be someone else when you have to give an address to which to send the absentee ballot.
I think your proposal is in conflict with the 24th Amendment.
I suppose you could still require an ID for non-Federal elections, but then you’d create two tiers of voters.
Everything I’m advocating should be free and I’ve never suggested getting around it by voluntarily paying any fee or tax. Plus I will continue to insist that what I have proposed just simply isn’t that “onerous” to use the term from the opinion.
The alternative that SCOTUS said was an onerous requirement was also free. That it was an alternative to a tax is not substantively different from your proposed alternative to IDs that cost money, such as driver’s licenses. That you don’t think it is onerous is not persuasive, since you’re presumably not one of those who would have to do it.
…if we went to a whole other card, specifically for voting, for everybody, and not allow pre-existing ID such as licenses? I suppose we could do that, but it strikes me as unnecessary. Really, what I’m not persuaded by is that there is no expectation of the voter to do what is necessary to get this done. There are all kinds of things in life that require a little bit of preparation and as long as we are requiring voter registration at all adding a click of the camera just really should not be an issue. Of course if we all get the same ID then someone complained that people might forget to bring the ID to the polls and it would be a burden to go home and get it. Frankly this is where I just sarcastically say boo hoo. We expect elementary age kids to not forget their homework at home; certainly we can expect an adult to bring a card that they could have kept in their wallet at all times anyway.
What is the problem you’re trying to solve – voting fraud? That’s a Right-wing fantasy. Solving that problem means showing that voting fraud is not happening in the manner or frequency alleged. That has been done in this very thread, yet you seem determined to ignore all that and continue trying to solve a nearly-nonexistent problem by adding layers of procedure to the exercise of the right to vote. That will inevitably result in fewer people voting. That’s what the Republicans want; is it what you want?
I was stunned the first time I voted and was not asked to prove that I was who I say I am. I’m not out to prove rampant voting fraud; that’s not the point here. It’s simply a verification that protects the integrity of the process AND as I mentioned elsewhere ultimately protects the voter from challenges. There is a single additional procedure (camera click) that costs zero dollars and two minutes of time. I do not for a minute buy that fewer people will vote and that’s not what I want.
a large inconvenience for others, such as those who don’t drive. Not to mention another way for GOP activists to interfere with voting. There is no voter fraud problem. Voter caging and other GOP suppression tactics should be dealt with as crimes they are, not by mandating ID, which has proven to be another way to interfere with the free exercise of voting rights.
<
p>As Brennan Center research has demonstrated,
<
p>Voter ID programs also cost a substantial amount of money. It’s also a red herring.
This falls into the ounce of prevention worth pound of cure category for me. If my university can get you a student ID with 5 minutes of your time and a half sheet of paperwork, then require that you present it to vote in student elections, certainly the real world can do the same.
It still has not been proven that voter fraud is a problem, and that proof is necessary before the state can interfere with the fundamental right to vote.
<
p>Your position seems to be that a problem exists, but it’s not voter fraud. Instead, it’s the efforts by conservative groups to interfere with the franchise by falsely claiming voter fraud and using caging and other forms of dissuasion to suppress turnout.
<
p>I don’t disagree that a Voter ID might be a practical help in fixing this effort by conservatives to discourage people from voting. But I really don’t like the idea of caving to the groundless assertions of conservatives by burdening the right to vote just because it’s the path of least resistance. The conservatives can come up with other groundless assertions about voter fraud – and then there would be a precedent for our accommodating those, too, just because it’s not really that big a deal.
I don’t have to prove it happens unless I’m prosecuting a specific party for it. I know it is VERY EASY to do and what I’m proposing does not strike me as interference.
checking out the links to the Brennan Center?
<
p>Right now, the fact is Voter ID provides a means of voter suppression. To alleviate a non-problem, you’ll create a real problem.
I would have guessed more like 5% tops, but I still think it’s easy enough to remedy that to not cause harm.
Every time a person moves they’ve got to go to RMV, wait in line, get the new ID, pay for it, and get home. That’s easily two hours of time and some amount of money. Sure, you could make it free which would, in my opinion, be essential so that you don’t have a poll tax, but even still…
<
p>there are plenty of young adults who live in Boston metro and move every year, typically September 1. That gives them a few weeks to get to RMV in time to get a new ID in addition to the few weeks they have to change their registration because of the 20 day (or somesuch) time period before the election by which a person must have registered. It creates another hurdle which is particularly burdensome to (a) renters who tend to move more often, (b) urban dwellers who tend to move more often, (c) those who don’t live conveniently close to the RMV, be they urban or rural, and (d) those who don’t have hours to kill during RMV opening times, including those with non-traditional family structures, who work nights, who work multiple jobs, etc.
<
p>Know who it doesn’t tend to harm? Middle class and wealthier people aged 30+ who live in the ‘burbs. So, in addition to being burdensome, it’s not even burdensome across the spectrum — it’s clearly more burdensome to some demographics than others. That’s a big problem.
I’m saying go to Town or City Hall. I’ve never had to wait more than a couple minutes at my Town Clerk’s office when I need something there. Yes, of course it needs to be free. Really, this is workable. Personally, I never changed my registration when I went away to college; I kept it here and voted absentee. However, there could be ways to set up this operation right on a college campus, just as voter registration drives are currently done. BTW, I favor sameday registration and could even be open to abolishing registration altogether IF we go to a system where I can just show up and prove I live where I say I live. I’ve rented in urban environments for relatively short terms too and I know if I wanted to get myself registered locally I could have done it.
the Town Clerk is open
Monday-Wednesday: 8:00a.m.-5:00p.m.
Thursday: 8:00a.m.-8:00p.m.
Friday: 8:00a.m.-12:30p.m.
<
p>I work long hours. I work unusual hours. I travel for work and am not around much M-F. I don’t leave the house much due to physical inability. Or transportation access.
<
p>All of those create additional burdens, very real burdens.
<
p>
<
p>P.S. Unfunded mandate!
I’m open to requiring additional hours, but the burdens you mention isn’t any more than to register in the first place. Whether you go to Town Hall or registration come to you there just needs to be a camera present to take your photo.
You know what the odds of swinging an election with a singular fraudulent vote is? Effectively zero.
<
p>Know what the penalty is for getting caught? Up to 5 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Effectively massive.
<
p>
<
p>The fact is that the penalty is so high and the value of a fraudulent vote so low that there’s just no reason for an individual to vote fraudulently. My suspicion is that the penalty really does help keep people from acting the fool.
First, while probability is against a single vote swinging an election, we all know instances of elections being decided by single digits.
<
p>In town or off-year elections where turnout is low I can go to nine different precincts and claim to be nine different people by looking down at the list, point to John Doe’s name and say that’s me. There would be no reason to doubt my honesty. Even if someone realizes later that I’m not John Doe I’m long gone and not likely to be tracked down. In the event I am tracked down they still wouldn’t know which ballots to discard, so electorally the damage is already done, and can’t be undone by locking me up or fining me.
<
p>Let’s just do this for everyone’s protection and trust in the system rather than thinking of all the ways it can’t work, won’t work, be abused etc. Smart people can write laws to guard against all that.
it just takes one person who happens to be in two different places and noticing something about you or your clothes or your gait. One police officer. One poll worker. One campaign volunteer.
<
p>They make the accusation, and if there’s follow up, you’re hosed. You’re in jail for years. And for what — 9 votes? If any of the elections are within 10 votes and it was determined that you cast 9 ballots, a court could nullify the election result and call for a revote. The damage can be undone, and your tail is in the can.
<
p>You correctly observe that the odds of you getting caught is low — but the odds of you influencing the outcome of the election is also extremely low. If you get caught, you pay a heavy price. It’s just like playing the lottery, only there’s a 1:1000 chance that you go to jail. Would you still play? I sure as hell wouldn’t. A million bucks sounds great, but five years in jail sounds worse.
<
p>
<
p>
<
p>I actually think that the odds of you getting caught in a smaller community is far higher than 1:1000. Could you do it in Boston? Probably. When was the last time a city-wide election was within 10 votes in Boston?
But that was long ago, and far away.
It is horsehit no matter who does it. A political party of whatever ideology will always put itself first, because its adherents are the only virtuous actors in the game, who never lose because they suck but only because of voter fraud/supression/ACORN/the Kochs/the Evil Man in the Moon.
How do you account for the nearly universal attribution on this very board of Coakley’s loss to Brown as being her own fault? Nobody blamed the Kochs. You’d like for every crap tactic the Right uses to be used just as much by the Left, but that is not happening.
they definitely would not be claiming voter fraud. Just sayin’.
Ok, if you think it strange that 10,000 people would vote only on one race, then break it down. First of all, does the number of ballots match the number of people who actually voted? I assume so or that would raise a huge stink.
<
p>Next question: got any evidence that anybody who voted that day doesn’t actually exist, or didn’t actually vote? The list of voters who voted is public knowledge, right?
<
p>If any fraud happened, especially on that sort of scale, it’s gotta be easy to uncover, to find somebody who didn’t vote but mysteriously appeared on the list of those who voted.
<
p>The fact that all we have is mud-slinging hypotheticals, the assumption that there must be fraud because something strange happened, is pretty clear evidence to me that no fraud happened.
There is a group that has been running the operation for at least twenty years. The current mayor, Lantigua, is tight with them and has been allied with them for a while.
<
p>Here is an example of them at work. Note that this was during the Democratic primary so no right wing involvement.
<
p>Eagle Tribune
<
p>The findings add another episode to the troubled history of voting in Lawrence, which include a series problems found in 2006 that caused the secretary of state to order the city to make several reforms
TFA describes a (Republican) candidate escorting a voter “into a booth,” and several errors by election officials.
<
p>Not good, should not have been allowed, and apparently part of an ongoing problem in Lawrence.
<
p>But fraud? That word does not mean what you think it means.
Breaking rules does not equal fraud. If state rep candidates are escorting people into the voting booth, or whatever, that’s a bad idea and the people in charge of the polling places should obviously know better and should prevent it. But that has exactly nothing to do with actual fraud. This John Fund fellow seems to be claiming that someone managed to dump 10,000 fake ballots into the election. That is, frankly, absurd, unless he can come up with some actual evidence beyond his highly insightful analysis of expected voter behavior. And, of course, he can’t.
This article barely scratched the surface.
<
p>There is a group of people who monitor the results as they go. They get reports from the field (poll workers on their team) who late in the afternoon will call teams of people
and give them names and addresses and send them off into the polling locations. There are 20 or 22 in Lawrence (24 precincts).
<
p>They will previously have scouted out poll locations to see if they are being watched or if the poll workers are being cooperative.
<
p>They are also numerous people who no longer live in Lawrence who still vote. You can see NY and NH liscense plates in the parking lots.
<
p>It is estimated that they can add about 40-50 votes per precinct. If they can’t get through on one, they will double up on others.
<
p>Statistical analysis bears this out. In that Democratic primary some precincts (controlling for the predominantly Anglo ones, which have higher turnout) had turnout rates 3X of others. That is just not possible.
<
p>The powers that be are weirdly resistant to change. Just reducing the polling locations would help. Neighboring Andover gets about the same number of voters and makes it happen with only two locations.
<
p>No one does anything about it. I don’t think this is a Republican issue, it should be important to everyone. Memebers of the other Dem candidate’s campaigns were appalled by what they saw there.
<
p>
In order for this scam to work, the former voters whose names were being used would need to continue to return municipal censuses every year.
<
p>Everything you give so far has more benign explanations.
<
p>- Observers at the polls are a common practice of all campaigns, their presence is not evidence of fraud.
<
p>- Re-registering your car in Massachusetts is expensive and I’m sure would cause a jump in insurance rates in Lawrence. Out of state plates does not mean they are not a resident.
<
p>- There a frequently large disparities in turnout, especially in local elections. Local candidates usually have a base of supporters that they excel at getting to the polls, even if the public at large is ignoring the election.
<
p>That being said, what you say is not completely implausible. The fact the the voters names being used are still in on the rolls is the weakest link to your story, assuming the check of mailing out census is being done correctly in Lawrence. (If not, that should be fixed right away.)
<
p>More clarification a citation is necessary.
I know you said that complacent poll workers were part of the problem, but I am poll worker in Somerville and you get to know who votes in your precinct, especially on off year elections. If 40-50 people showed up claiming to be random voters on the list, they would certainly be caught.
<
p>Secondly, even if the poll workers won’t do their job, the law provides for challenges by third party observers. If the fraud is as obvious as you suggest, why don’t the opposing campaigns send observers to the polls and challenge the fake voters when they show up? I know you said part of the problem is that they scout out precincts, but if you’re running for mayor or ward alderman or whatever, getting even a couple dozen volunteers should not be too high a hurdle.
<
p>From the sounds of the article, they did have observers and what they reported as “fraud” was fairly weak tea.
The trick is in the low turnout, which is about 35% on average. In the more Latino precincts (70% of Lawrence) it is lower. Someone’s name could be used for voting year after year without them realizing it. Note that in Lawrence over 1000 votes come from only 10 street addresses (they are projects or apartments).
<
p>The poll workers aren’t complacent, they’re complict. They have been recruited over 20 years.
<
p>The reason that opposing campaigns have difficulty (they do try) is the magnitude. Try finding people to cover 22 polling locations for 15 hours each on election day. Oh and they had better speak Spanish because fraud has gone on right in front of English-only observers. Good luck trying to find Spanish speaking Republicans if it’s a state or legislative campaign.
<
p>Note that any of the polls could be a problem. Station an observer and that particular poll might be okay, but they are astute enough to attack elsewhere.
<
p>As I mentioned this article barely scratches the surface, the Spanish language paper Rumbo had more extensive coverage.
<
p>You can keep making excuses about the license plates, but when there are stories about people who have no identification (inactive or other legitimate reasons to ask), can’t correctly give their name, or when they are requested to return with some ID, never do. I got these directly from poll workers or observers. These same people have told me stories about other poll workers using their cells phones to report poll results during the day (a violation), and complaints go unresolved. If you live in a town and are used to the grannies that check you off, you cannot imagine.
<
p>There is never an investigation into these things. Note the biggest defender of the current system is Mayor Lantigua, and if you think he is a stand up guy, then there’s nothing I can say.
If you don’t know anything about him try this story from just last week. It’s one of many.
right?
<
p>Right?
<
p>Because these are serious allegations. Until you provide some evidence, that’s all they are. The only independent account you’ve offered, the Eagle-Tribune article, says the Secretary of State investigated earlier problems and took some action, so don’t now pretend that no one ever does anything about it.
It also takes a while for people to get purged from voter rolls, as noted in the article.
<
p>I’ve known people who have voted at town meeting in my town who are living in a different municipality, but have yet to register to vote in their new community.
<
p>Democrats would gladly modernize the voter registration system; however, another major U.S. political party lacks similar enthusiasm.
<
p>Voter ID is a bad solution to a minor problem that could be fixed with serious attention.
…that ID proposals hit minorities hardest, in Lawrence I’ve heard that the strongest advocates in Lawrence for tighter rules are Hispanics.
The place seems to be a breeding ground for unsubstantiated allegations lately.
<
p>Or so I’ve heard …
I live in the area; it came up at a forum I attended where this was discussed awhile back.
It may be true, but what you’re telling us is that you heard some unnamed person or persons say it at an unnamed forum an unspecified while back.
<
p>If we’re going to dismiss unsupported claims from the Right (as we should), it behooves us to not make unsupported claims of our own. I know you’re reluctant to follow links in diaries and comments – I forget what you said the reason for that is – and I assume the same reason applies to your not supplying links, but it doesn’t help your arguments any more than it does the Right-wingers’.
<
p>We all have opinions. When our opinions are challenged, the best answers include some external support for the opinions. Not doing that doesn’t just fail to make our opinions look more like facts, it makes them look more like baseless opinion.
…but I’m sure we all have enough experience of I heard somewhere or read somewhere whatever and we retain those memories, even if only vaguely. I don’t always follow links due to lack of time, especially when I had a dial-up connection. I think I do OK providing links when I do have them.
he did write “I’ve heard” — he made it pretty clear that he wasn’t making a claim based on data and analysis. Rumor mill stuff.
I would rather not have rumor be a part of this board. It doesn’t help the ‘reality-based’ part of the thing.
<
p>Note that Christopher has still not given any verifiable details about the story he heard – not who, or where, or when. It may as well have come to him in a dream, for all we know.
This is from a Spanish/English newpaper Rumbo. Note this was in a Democratic primary (the 9/14/10 one)
<
p>Election troubles in Lawrence Rumbo, Oct. 15, 2010
<
p>Not too many people are talking about the recent problem with a warden in Ward C-3 but I know it reached the Secretary of State’s Of fi ce. A volunteer representing Debbie Silberstein’s campaign wrote a letter to the Elections Department at the Secretary of the Commonwealth listing many irregularities he witnessed. In hot water is Warden Oscar Rodriguez who got caught marking up absentee ballots and then putting them through the voting machine. There were multiple occurrences of the warden asking elderly Spanish speaking voters if they needed help completing the ballot in the voting booth. He would them gesture to one of the ladies sitting in the room to assist the voter in the booth. Poll workers are instructed during training sessions not to initiate contact with voters and to only address voters upon the request of the voter. The volunteer claims that he observed the check-in clerk identify voters on an inactive list and provide them a ballot, let them vote and place the ballot in the ballot box then ask them to complete a form that seemed like an af fi davit that stipulated they were continuous resident in the city. In only one instance did he observe the clerk challenge a voter for an ID, after the voter had already placed the ballot in the ballot box but could not produce a positive ID. He also noticed that the check-in and check-out clerks spend most of the day calling back and forth to each other whose names they had checked off, crosschecking and adjusting their tallies to correct many discrepancies. In some instances, the check-out clerk would listen to the names being given to the check-in clerk and cross it out on her list long before the ballot was inside the ballot box. There were complaints about poll workers asking voters to vote for Barry Finegold but the warden denied that it was happening. When City Clerk William Maloney asked the police of fi cer present at the poll location he said that they were speaking Spanish all day and he doesn’t understand Spanish, so he has no idea if that was the case. Mr. Maloney reminded the poll workers and police of fi cer that they were not allowed to endorse or advocate for any candidate at any time. So much for training and transparency! I’m sure that went on at other polling places, too.
I don’t care about having the last word. However, since you claim there is reporting of election fraud in a newspaper article (for which you neglected to give a link), I found that newspaper online. There is no such article in the Oct. 15, 2010 edition of Rumbo. If you are quoting from some different issue of that paper, please provide a link; don’t make us do your work for you. Since the tone of your quote is very different from the articles and editorials in that paper, I will be surprised if you aren’t quoting a letter to the editor, if it’s in the paper at all.
As there is no direct link you need to pull down the .pdf.
<
p>Read it and you tell me it’s not a direct quote from the paper.