Voter Fraud - The Dog That Didn't Bark


Voter Fraud - The Dog that Didn't Bark

Michael Collins
Also published at the ACLU Blog of Rights

We're having our quadrennial encounter with the menace of voter fraud. We are to believe that gangs of undocumented aliens and the unemployed will vote illegally or, if registered, on multiple occasions. They'll do this to capitalize on the fraudulent registrations secured by paid operatives who can't make money in any other way. We're told that this alleged pattern is a menace to democracy.

This is not a new part of the political dialog. The charges have been around for decades. They've been revived with real vigor over the past eight years.

Given the danger proposed, here's some important evidence. The U.S. Department of Justice has voter fraud at the top of its agenda. With their clear emphasis on law enforcement prerogatives, the goal to shut down alleged voter fraud produced next to nothing:

(Chart from the Politics of Voter Fraud by Loraine C. Minnite, PhD)

Three years, 38 cases, 11 guilty pleas, and 13 convictions: that's it. It is the best outcome the Department of Justice could get. They've been at it 30 years so you'd think they would have learned a trick or too.

Yet, voter fraud has been a major focus of the department. Look at the attention it got and the time spent on it at Justice and the Election Assessment Commission. But here is the conclusion of an exhaustive review of voting evidence:

"-- though voter fraud does happen, it happens approximately 0.0009% of the time. The similarly closely-analyzed 2004 election in Ohio revealed a voter fraud rate of 0.00004%. National Weather Service data shows that Americans are struck and killed by lightning about as often." (Author's emphasis)

Brennan Center for Justice

In 2005, two major studies were commissioned by the Election Assistance Commission. One was on voter intimidation and the other on polling place fraud. The results were in line with the Brennan Center and others -- there is virtually no election fraud and voter suppression is a major problem. OMB Watch describes what happened:

  • "the original report found little evidence of polling place fraud, while the final report said there is "a great deal of debate on the pervasiveness of fraud."
  • 'the original report found "evidence of some continued outright intimidation and suppression" of voters, but the final report said voter suppression is also a topic of debate.
  • 'the original report found "false registration forms have not resulted in polling place fraud", but the final version blamed nonprofit organizations, claiming "registration drives by nongovernmental organizations as a source of fraud."
    OMB Watch, Apr. 12, 2007

Those in control are creating a virtual reality regardless of the facts.

The simple truth is that voter fraud is so rare that it has no relationship with our elections. Yet millions of dollars and countless hours are devoted to this legendary menace to democracy.

Those seeking to remedy the real problems in voting rights and the obvious examples of election fraud (wholesale efforts to manipulate entire elections) might feel like abandoning all hope when they enter the Supreme Court of the United States. One of the very worst decisions in recent history was handed down by the court in an ACLU law suit challenging Indiana's restrictive photographic identification law.

There is ample evidence that the purpose of the Indiana photo ID law, the prevention of the phantom crime of voter fraud, would curb turnout in that state. But the court persevered and hypothesized that they'd actually found some real evidence. What was the evidence that was so compelling that it resulted in sanctioning photo ID laws in all fifty states? See this extended note from "Polite Fascism Contracts the Right to Vote"

There is one obvious question from all of this:

How do you work in a system with people who deny the reality of what happens on Election Day? What does it say about an elections system that perseverates on the "voter" fraud fiction for decades in the repeated absence of any evidence to substantiate that fraud?

There are serious problems with elections in the United States: voter suppression; felon disenfranchisement; unsecured computerized voting on invisible ballots; vote counting conducted in secret; a billion dollars spent on campaigns; and few if any real issues discussed in a serious fashion. These and other manifest problems should be the focus, not a contrivance based on a fiction.

END

Many thanks to Suzanne Ito for her very helpful comments on this article


Permission to reprint with attribution of authorship and a link to this article


Links for further reading

ACLU Blog of Rights
(This article - open comments, no registration required)


Michael Collins October 17, 2008 - 11:52am
( categories: Analysis | USA: Campaign 2008 )

tjfxh October 17, 2008 - 6:27pm

Rolling Stone, By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. & Greg Palast, October 30

Block The Vote

Will the GOP's campaign to deter new voters and discard Democratic ballots determine the next president?

These days, the old west rail hub of Las Vegas, New Mexico, is little more than a dusty economic dead zone amid a boneyard of bare mesas. In national elections, the town overwhelmingly votes Democratic: More than 80 percent of all residents are Hispanic, and one in four lives below the poverty line. On February 5th, the day of the Super Tuesday caucus, a school-bus driver named Paul Maez arrived at his local polling station to cast his ballot. To his surprise, Maez found that his name had vanished from the list of registered voters, thanks to a statewide effort to deter fraudulent voting. For Maez, the shock was especially acute: He is the supervisor of elections in Las Vegas.

Maez was not alone in being denied his right to vote. On Super Tuesday, one in nine Democrats who tried to cast ballots in New Mexico found their names missing from the registration lists. The numbers were even higher in precincts like Las Vegas, where nearly 20 percent of the county's voters were absent from the rolls. With their status in limbo, the voters were forced to cast "provisional" ballots, which can be reviewed and discarded by election officials without explanation. On Super Tuesday, more than half of all provisional ballots cast were thrown out statewide.

This November, what happened to Maez will happen to hundreds of thousands of voters across the country. In state after state, Republican operatives — the party's elite commandos of bare-knuckle politics — are wielding new federal legislation to systematically disenfranchise Democrats. If this year's race is as close as the past two elections, the GOP's nationwide campaign could be large enough to determine the presidency in November. "I don't think the Democrats get it," says John Boyd, a voting-rights attorney in Albuquerque who has taken on the Republican Party for impeding access to the ballot. "All these new rules and games are turning voting into an obstacle course that could flip the vote to the GOP in half a dozen states."


"Frankly, we've lost a lot in recent years." - General Colin Powell

Raja October 18, 2008 - 7:32pm
Raja October 18, 2008 - 7:41pm

I'm a great admirer of Greg Palast. His 2000 coverage is anazing, as is his ongoing work on elections and other issues. RFK Jr. broke the silence and used the word "stolen election" in the great article on 2004 in Rolling Stone. In this case, however, I disagree and here's why.

The issue isn't would they steal it if they could. Of course they would. They're looking at charges from various corners of the country and world if they lose power. People turned away from voting is an outrage and the time and effort on "voter fraud" - which barely exists - is positively hallucinogenic.

The issue this election is three fold:

1) Obama has enough votes to win represented by the "net new" primary voters in the key swing states and traditionally Republican states, shifts in conservative white voter sentiment, and record breaking crowds for Obama, lightly reported, except by locals;

2) the various means of stealing it, which this year are noticeably focused on "voter fraud;"

3) the obvious participation of some, not all, of corporate media in the "too close to call" meme.

The point of focus, imho, should be on the fact that Obama's lead is such that stealing it will be absolutely clear - it will take all the distortions available, all the professional trolls who lie about outcomes, and unified media support to pull it off. Even then, they won't come close to finding a place to stuff all the extra votes in order to shift the outcome.

With the conservative white voter sentiment to Mukasey on wrongful voter fraud investigations and attendant publicity just before the election (a DOJ no, no), we have some hope that the Democrats are prepared. In legal terms, that was a "notice letter" - you're doing something illegal, we know, and now you know that we know. It was a profound event, the significance of which won't be lost on the former chief judge of the Southern District of New York.

Obama will win. To deny the win means massive fraud, whic will be obvious. The immediate position after that, if it occurs, is not "It was stolen," it's, "You can't be serious. Prove it!"

Michael Collins October 19, 2008 - 4:19pm

NYT Article

By ADAM LIPTAK and IAN URBINA
Published: October 17, 2008

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday overturned a lower court’s order requiring state officials in Ohio to supply information that would have made it easier to challenge prospective voters. The decision was a setback for Ohio Republicans, who had sued to force the Ohio secretary of state, a Democrat, to provide information about database mismatches to county officials.

The decision has the potential to affect as many as 200,000 of the 660,000 new voters who have been registered in Ohio since Jan. 1, according Social Security Administration and state election officials.

The Supreme Court, in a brief, unsigned decision, said lower federal courts in Ohio should not have ordered the secretary of state, Jennifer Brunner, to turn over the information. The court acted just before a deadline requiring Ms. Brunner to act set by a federal judge in Columbus.

* * * * * * *

The court said it expressed “no opinion on the question whether HAVA is being properly implemented.” But it said that Congress probably had not intended to allow private litigants like political parties to sue to enforce the part of the law concerning databases.

AMC October 17, 2008 - 6:53pm

The underlying issue is that the GOP flat out doesn't regard democracy as legitimate. Everything from the 'voter fraud' fraud to DREs that misregister D votes as R (but never the other way around) stems from this. It's impossible to have a functional democracy and good governance if half the power elite and 30+% of the population hold anti-democratic, illiberal, ideologies that range from Straussianism and theocratism to outright fascism.

As far as the GOP is concerned, democracy is a tool to legitimate their right to rule rather than a legitimate means to make collective political decisions. Until Republican elites are prepared to accept democracy as a legitimate means of making collective political decisions then there can be no improvement in American politics.

Wandering Cynic October 18, 2008 - 5:42pm

100% accurate.

"As far as the GOP is concerned, democracy is a tool to legitimate their right to rule rather than a legitimate means to make collective political decisions."

Elegant and powerful two paragraphs. There's not much left to explain after reading this statement. Thank you.

See http://electionfraudnews.com/index.html and scroll down just a bit.

Michael Collins October 19, 2008 - 4:22pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.