Voter Fraud in Alabama?
The NYT has an interesting story about a voter fraud investigation in Alabama.
Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
Sources on the Second Amendment
Voter Fraud in Alabama?
The NYT has an interesting story about a voter fraud investigation in Alabama. |
ContactSubscribe
FeaturesStuff from usAcademic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates Sources on the Second Amendment BlogrollArchivesThe Volokh Conspiracy uses and recommends: |
1) What's been stated so far is hardly proof of Democrats breaking the law. What we have are accusations that are clearly sufficiently credible for a thorough investigation, but there's nothing that approaches proof of anything.
2) Nobody is shrugging it off by claiming it's no big deal. Certain people accused of committing crimes are claiming they didn't commit those crimes - not that those crimes are no big deal.
Your classification of things as "proof" or "allegations" is legally sloppy and logically incoherent. The existing evidence may or may not be sufficient to bear the prosecution's burden, but we won't know that until after a trial.
As a private citizen, you're free to impose whatever burden you want and believe whatever you want, regardless of what evidence exists, but don't mutter half-baked thoughts about "proof" and how individuals (as opposed to the state) need to ignore the evidence since it hasn't been "proven".
Nasty remarks against one party do little to resolve the very real issue of voter fraud and vote suppresion.
Whether it is fraud in a largely black county, or a polling booth person in Cuyahoga County who "assisted" my great aunt by pushing all of the buttons for Republicans when my great aunt said she wanted a straight Democratic ticket (it was resolved when my aunt raised a giant ruckas, something she should never had been required to do) - there are probs.
I point out the example of my great aunt, because I assume the assistant did this many times over and over.
I've long believed that the first step in preventing dems from stealing other elections is to do a search of those voting in the last election by residence. I believe it was Oakland 10-15 years ago when they did this for another reason and found many (50-60?) voters listing the small home of a city pol as their home address. Don't think anything ever came of it. Of course, there is always the old technique of gathering absentee ballots or voter registration cards at nursing homes.
You must have never heard of Ohio, where in 2004 there were counties that had more votes cast for Bush than there were registered voters in the entire county. Or have you also forgotten the Florida debacle where people were prevented from voting because they had a name similiar to a convicted felon.
Once again, there is fraud occurring and it is from all directions. Why then do people on this Board seem to think it is just a Democratic Party problem?
Because it keeps people who would vote Democrat from voting, because they don't have ID's and don't care enough to get them.
Because it's the Democratic Party which resists efforts to fight the problem, and Democrats who loudly and repeatedly state that there is no problem.
Let us not forget Washington State, Per Son. Democrats will get credit for opposing voter fraud when they actually, y'know, oppose voter fraud.
"the actual incidence of repub voter fraud claims are rare."
That is a laugh. If anyone can post a list of convictions for voter fraud and the party it involved - that would be great.
Sure, they've been voting for decades now, but the latest Republican tactic of denying them the vote - in a Don Quixote-inspired perception of widespread fraud - is just the latest incarnation of McCarthyism and an attempt to keep The Darkies (and now Latinos) back on the plantation where they Can't Make No Fuss.
If anonymouseducator knew how impossible it is to get a valid ID (suitable for voting) maybe she wouldn't be so quick to judge.
Didn't hear of it because it didn't happen.
And the evidence of fraud is incontravertable! Affidavits! It's not like the Republicans have politicized investigations into voter fraud in the past.
Also, the NY Times clearly has a liberal bias, so the actual story must be much worse! Any election Republicans lose is suspect, retroactively to 2006.
Moreover, focusing on just vote fraud ignores the other side of the coin voter-suppression or other frauds. Like how there were thousands of flyers spread in Prince George's County saying how the Republican Senate cadidate was a Democrat, or similiar campaigns where incorrect dates for elections are spread through phone calls and mailings in Democratic strongholds.
How about the Rovian tactic of getting churches to hand over memberlists and then sending these lists to candidates and PACs?
If you actually think one side has dirtier hands than the other - you are a moron. Again, voter fraud is just one subset of a much larger problem involving illegal election activities - and it is wrong at best and dishonest at worst to perpetuate the myth that it is mroe one side than the other.
I grew up in Alabama and absentee ballot fraud in those counties in particular has been infamous for many years. 20 to 30% absentee balloting rates are almost prima facie evidence of fraud. Many of these former civil rights leaders think it is now their hereditary right to soak their constituents. It's sad.
We're not arguing over what the standards of proof should be, we're talking about the discounting of facts that lead to a conclusion one doesn't like on the grounds solely on the basis that they haven't been proven. When a paper as liberal as the New York Times publishes multiple statements from votes stating that they were paid to vote Democratic, it takes a tremendous level of gaul to be willing to stand up and publicly whine about how there isn't sufficient proof.
Honestly, the more I think about this, the more I think of the Viceroy's protestations in the Imperial Senate scene from Star Wars Episode I (yes, I'm a dork, I know).
The suggestion that we shouldn't do anything because there hasn't been an investigation of the allegations is simply a dilatory tactic. If you need a conviction in a court of law to be convinced that somsthing is proven, that's your perogative, but don't claim I can't reach my own conclusions because something you don't think something is proven.
And the poor are generally unemployed, so they have loads of time to go off and get an ID.
Absentee ballots are always fake. The dead are always filing those out to vote, which is illegal.
autolykos is a humble genius, as all dorks are. I generally require much less then a conviction before I start policies that burden people's Constitutional rights.
My only argument with his thesis is that this situation is more like when the guys with white on the right side of their face kept disenfranchising the guy with white on the left side of his face by voting like a million times.
So there was no voting irregularities in Ohio? There were tons of problems, some were caught, and fixed - others it appeared weren't. One question, why are some repubs like Blackwell so against electronic voting where a paper record is not kept? Hmmm. . . I can think of a reason.
From Conyer's letter to Ken Blackwell:
"On election day, a computerized voting machine in ward 1B in the Gahanna precinct of Franklin County recorded a total of 4,258 votes for President Bush and 260 votes for Democratic challenger, John Kerry. However, there are only 800 registered voters in that Gahanna precinct, and only 638 people cast votes at the New Life Church polling site. It was since discovered that a computer glitch resulted in the recording of 3,893 extra votes for President George W. Bush.
Fortunately, this glitch was caught and the numbers were adjusted to show President Bush’s true vote count at 365 votes to Senator Kerry’s 260 votes."
Miami County Vote Discrepancy – In Miami County, with 100% of the precincts reporting on Wednesday, November 3, 2004, President Bush had received 20,807 votes, or 65.80% of the vote, and Senator Kerry had received 10,724 votes, or 33.92% of the vote. Miami reported 31,620 voters. Inexplicably, nearly 19,000 new ballots were added after all precincts reported, boosting President Bush’s vote count to 33,039, or 65.77%, while Senator Kerry’s vote percentage stayed exactly the same to three one-hundredths of a percentage point at 33.92%.
Roger Kearney of Rhombus Technologies, Ltd., the reporting company responsible for vote results of Miami County, has stated that the problem was not with his reporting and that the additional 19,000 votes came before 100% of the precincts were in. However, this does not explain how the vote count could change for President Bush, but not for Senator Kerry, after 19,000 new votes were added to the roster.
So I guess you don't know how folks like Per Son are after all.
Note - I'm sure it is illegal for the state to discourage minority voting. I'm only referring to private parties.
I do hope Cheney takes some time out of his busy day to check this "per son" out. Personally.
Oh well, back to bar studying...
Maybe, like the low level of Brady Law prosecutions not much. Just a low level of interest and resources (at least according to law enforcement.)
Brady Bill
So because a Dem would win anyways in Cuyahoga county, illegal actions by Republicans is somehow ok??
I live in DC, a apart from Carol Schwartz - Democratic victories are forgone conclusions - I still would be appalled by any voter suppression or voter fraud.
As for voter suppression being illegal, I am only referring to illegal tactics.
Not in the least. It just seemed to me that if a county is going to be doing wholesale fraud (as you were suggesting in your anecdote), it would be doing the fraud for the political party in power.
I am for "clean" elections in all respects. I find nothing wrong with requiring voter ID and there should be some mechanism (a fingerprint, perhaps?) to verify absentee voters; I support paper trails for electronic voting; I think that voting rolls should be kept "tight" and missing two general elections in a row should cause a name to be purged; I also abhor any attempt to actually disenfrachise those who are lawfully entitled to vote.
I suspect the argument would be more like, "Because elections officers in Cuyahoga county would be Democrats, illegal actions by Republicans are unlikely.
Though I suppose it's possible one or two Republicans slipped through by accident.
1. Sarcasm is the defense of the weak.
2. If you're going to be sarcastic, at least try to be funny.
3. We don't need to "start policies". We need to, you know, enforce the law.
Finally, to top it all off conservatives say the reality in Alabama must be worse because, well, this is they New York Times and everyone knows they are liberal. Ignoring the fact that both this story and a freaking column by George F. Will were linked to by the oh-so-liberal Volokh Conspiracy. Whatever you do, make sure you don't challenge any of your underlying assumptions.
2. Humor is in the eye of the beholder. I assure you, I am having a grand time!
3. Indeed, since every law is always enforced, policy is never set by discretionary enforcement!
I was providing examples of vote problems and listed my aunt, because that is a real world example to me (she ain't gonna lie to her beloved nephew).
Sarcastro: you are funny, and I believe that you make many of us laugh.
I'm equally shocked that the Republicans would accuse poor black people of voting fraud right before this election.
Let me respond to point #1.
The article clearly states:
Sounds pretty much like proof to me. A witness who admits that he participated in the activity while "know[ing] it's wrong".
Not good enough? How about a signed affidavit?
As to point #2:
People who are admitting they are doing it and have been doing it for a long time ("It ain't nothing new"), sure sounds like business as usual. Ergo - it's no big deal to them.
Be outraged at ANY instance of voter fraud, not just the ones that are tagetting your party.
I'd ask to whom you are referring, but I'm guessing it's the proverbial strawman.
I can't fault you for having low standards, after all, somebody has to buy all those tickets to see Margaret Cho perform...
I will note that this probable blatant corruption as described in the NYT article seems to be limited to a small rural county. In most places, it probably would not be economical or politically possible to engage in actual vote buying.
1,000 absentee ballots is described as a large number. i.e. this is really a tiny rural county.
I do not think that the example of a small rural county, which is surely an outlier, provides much justification for policies like requiring Voters to have state-issued ID. Especially since it appears that much of the fraud is with respect to absentee ballots.
Finally, Voter ID requirements would not help in this county. In this case, the problem is not that there are not enough laws, the problem is that the law that is on the books is not being enforced. Candidates are actually at the ballot box, and no one is stopping them.
Well, guess what. Even if you have a voter ID law, it doesn't do much good if it isn't enforced, does it? And anyway, especially in the context of a small town where everyone knows everyone, it seems especially likely that people would have a tendency to fail to enforce the law.
What this county needs is a good dose of law and order.
NRA supporters should understand this one: sometimes it makes sense to simple enforce the laws you already have before you make new ones. The county here as described in the article sounds completely corrupt and lawless. That is the problem.
It is a general admonition. Too often when we see stories of Democrat fraud like the article linked, partisan Democrats come out and either deny or claim that it is not a problem. Ditto if it is the Republicans caught with their hand in the cookie jar.
It would be refreshing if for once one of the libs would simply come out and say "This story is outrageous. It makes me ashamed to be associated with these people."
But it will never happen.
My responses were only going to the belief that seems to exist here that only Dems are bad actors in the realm of voting.
I cannot imagine how anyone could argue that the stuff in the article if true, is somehow not horrible.
Snarky must therefore not be a lib, what with all his calls for law and order and prison.
I think he's a concern troll! A real lib would be frothing at the mouth, quoting Marx and reinterpreting our Constitution!
Funny thing is - I never said Ohio really voted for Kerry, but for silly shenanigans. I pointed out serious problems. You, ejo, are the one with the Kos obsession and "far left" obsession not I. I have stated here and elsewhere that Kerry's biggest problem was Kerry not voter fraud/suppression/etc.
So, in all of this, what is your point?
Ugh - you are frustrating me!!!!!!!!! Are you a troll who is intentionally attributing comments to me that I never said. I never countered anything in the NYT article!!! I countered the assertion that it is somehow just a problem with Democrats.
As for Ohio, you have made a decision to view one version of facts. Personally, I do not know, and I tend to believe there were some serious problems, but not enough to change the election. You stated "kerry was a problem-live with it." Were you addressing me, because I never said Bush did not legitimately win the election in 2004 - I can't help it if a majority of the voting Americans did something I consider dumb (re-elect Bush).
I also stated:
"Moreover, focusing on just vote fraud ignores the other side of the coin voter-suppression or other frauds. Like how there were thousands of flyers spread in Prince George's County saying how the Republican Senate cadidate was a Democrat, or similiar campaigns where incorrect dates for elections are spread through phone calls and mailings in Democratic strongholds."
Those things happened. It is a fact. If it makes you feel happy, I'll list some Democratic voter fraud. The dead people voting for Kennedy and the recent debacle in East Saint Louis.
2. The idea that Democrats are paying massive (allegedly thousands at least) numbers of strangers to vote without anyone stepping forward and going "states evidence" reaches Fake-Moon-Landing levels of conspiracy theorizing. Somehow we are supposed to believe that democrats are paying thousands of perfect strangers to vote, all across the country, but that the Republican party cannot get even one single mole to take part and then blow the whistle, or even a participant to come forward and testify "I was paid for my vote by Democrats".
As for number 2, I believe there are people who have used such payments. The question is how widespread, and who was responsible. If you all recall in 2006 there were some ACORN employees doing just that. ACORN was helping the DOJ go after these employees, and tons of people on this site was saying that ACORN committed vote fraud.
That is like blaiming the DNC if I went and committed vote fraud without their knowledge.
I do understand where you are coming from, though. Where are these vast networks of vote fraud, as opposed to regional problems here and there.
Real voter fraud does not take the form of a coordinated campaign to pay thousands of untrustworthy strangers to commit a crime on your behalf.
The Republican obsession with the most easily caught (when it actually happens) and least attempted form of voter fraud, which "just happens" to require measures likely to suppress Democratic-leaning voting Demographics, strikes sane people as a little bit fishy.
A bunch of statements made by a few random people (who by their job descriptions and lignual skills may not be educated) that unidentified people (not Democrats) give out $20 or $30 to vote, is not proof by any stretch of "Democrats openly breaking the law."
Also, if all you meant is that the impoverished people who have allegedly accepted the money don't think it is a big deal, then that's ok. But that's hardly an interesting point, nor is it the implication you gave when you said "people shrugging it off" the implication I took was you meant Democrats and liberal politicians and analysts. Good thing we got that cleared up.
1. Absentee ballot fraud is by far the most common type of voter fraud. Why focus the lion-share of police resources to fight a much less widespread form of abuse?
2. If a Democratic official ignored a major crime problem in a democratic area and instead sent the police to hassle you and your neighbors over a much less widespread and less dangerous form of crime in your neighborhood, I doubt you'd be so sanguine.
A bunch of statements made by a few random people (who by their job descriptions and lignual skills may not be educated) that unidentified people (not Democrats) give out $20 or $30 to vote, is not proof by any stretch of "Democrats openly breaking the law."
Since everyone else here is apparently too polite to mention it: When you are making assumptions about strangers' educational attainment on the basis of their speech, it really is better not to refer to their poor "lignual skills."
So two of the three people quoted used That Contraction Of Which All We Educated Folks Have Been Well Broken.(Alabamans saying "ain't" in conversation? Say it, er, isn't so!) I gather the "job descriptions" bit (why the plural?) is a reference to the description of one of the three as unemployed.
Never mind the assumptions, though. I'm more interested in why you think what you're assuming true would be relevant if it were. Presumably even a poor and uneducated man can tell whether someone has offered him money in exchange for his vote. Is the implication that the unlettered are too stupid to be credible witnesses? Too dishonest? Or what?
But I don't wonder why the Democrat Party opposes identity/citizenship verification of voters, and why the Republican Party favors identity/citizenship verification. One of them is just gaming the system.
As for the party balance in vote fraud, there is no doubt that people in both parties commit vote fraud -- and that it is far more common among Democrats. Anyone who doesn't believe that should read John Fund's "Stealing Elections", or simply do regular searches on Google News with "vote + fraud".
Incidentally, one of the subjects I try to cover at my own site is vote fraud -- and I have found many examples, without spending a lot of time.
By the way, Democrats should take vote fraud seriously, too, since it occurs in Democratic primaries, as well as general elections. In fact, since the electorates are usually smaller in primaries, it is likely that vote fraud changes the outcome more often in primaries than in general elections.
(Oh, and one ironic bit. Recently, the NYT ran an editorial proclaiming that vote fraud was a "myth". Somehow I doubt that the publication of this article -- or even the convictions of the accused in these counties -- will change their minds.)
bribescampaign contributions. This in turn makes corruption and influence-peddling so irresistible, as "Contract with America" Republicans displayed so well over Bush's terms.It's a shame that the Supreme Court declined to apply a Due Process standard to redistricting.
Jon, can we take it from this that you have a partisan view as to where the problem lies?
Well, obviously if John Conyers complains about a Republican winning, it must be factually-based because John Conyers is an unbiased, nonpartisan source.
Except that "all precincts" hadn't reported; this was reported and debunked years ago. The confusion came from the fact that as soon as a precinct reported a single vote, it was described as "reporting," even though it hadn't reported all its votes yet.That doesn't even make sense on its own merits. By the very numbers you cited, the vote count changed proportionally for both candidates. Bush did not get 19,000 votes; he got 13,000. Kerry got the rest.
... and DangerMouse had a busy day.
The fact that we don't have such a system says to me that the powers-that-be either don't care or really don't want a secure system.
Well, you can imagine that Democrat Party officials (and the sympathetic media) were aghast at the underhanded voter suppression tactics. One can imagine the frantic, last-minute phone calls, assuring everyone that nobody would be "disenfranchised" in this manner. We can only hope that disaster was averted.
Only a racist would have the effrontery to ask who is likely to be discouraged from voting, by this type of stunt.
Your theory about the Dems always opposing voter fraud proposals is interesting and all. But it's wrong. In the recent voter fraud bill, there were Democratic amendments to address absentee voter fraud. You know, the kind that is actually being discussed here. Voted down...by the Republicans...who supported ending voter fraud, of course...just not that KIND of voter fraud.
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.