Panel blocks Georgia voter checks

[Kefka]

ATLANTA (AP) — Federal judges have ordered Georgia elections officials to stop using Social Security numbers and driver's licenses to check voters' immigration status until the U.S. Justice Department decides whether to approve the process.

Georgia is one of several states that needs federal approval before changing election policy because of a history of discriminatory voting practices.

The three-judge panel's 27-page ruling Monday orders Georgia officials to make "diligent and immediate" efforts to notify voters who have been flagged as ineligible.

It also blocks the state from removing flagged names from voter lists unless voters say in writing that they are ineligible.


http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5goXdqiHHk8p0cqXGZHuUAqEI205gD9430EEO0

[Mabus]

Good to see judges stepping in to Ohio, Georgia and other places to ensure that fraudulent voters can cast their illegal ballots.

[Necromancer]

Yeah because it's a great practice to require all the brown people to have to show SSN and DLs to vote. You think they were pulling that shit with white people?

There's a reason why Georgia has to have extra oversight in its election process.

[Mabus]

You think they were pulling that shit with white people?
I have not seen Georgia voter registration lists, but the ones in Ohio do not have race listed.

Do you have proof that they list race on those lists in Georgia, or are you just talking out of your ass?

[Necromancer]

They were checking them at the voting line.

[TheRoseLady]

Good to see judges stepping in to Ohio, Georgia and other places to ensure that fraudulent voters can cast their illegal ballots.

From everything I have read and heard, voter fraud is very uncommon. (dealing with the actual votes, and the actual process of showing up and casting a ballot.)

Voter registration irregularities are much more common resulting from ACORN like registrations, typos, clerical errors and such.

Disfranchisement is the biggest issue. Not enough polling machines in certain precincts, confusing ballots, telling people already in line that they can't vote when the polls close, any number of fliers telling folks they will have their child support status, warrants etc checked when they vote. The effort to prevent people from voting by using foreclosure lists, purging of registrations, requesting lists of people who registered and voted on the same day in a certain county in Ohio.

Any actions that the courts take to limit/prevent disfranchisement of voters is a good thing.

[diethx]

They were checking them at the voting line.

I voted on Friday, in Atlanta. They checked my drivers license. I'm white.

[Ogreslayer]

From everything I have read and heard, voter fraud is very uncommon. (dealing with the actual votes, and the actual process of showing up and casting a ballot.)

What is the basis of the claim that actual voter fraud is uncommon? And on what basis can it be stated that the "bigger" issue is disenfranchisement. Is there anyone who thinks we should only be taking steps to address one while ignoring the other? I have yet to hear a reasoned rationale for not enforcing identity checks to confirm that the voter is an eligible voter and not voting more than once.

For a clear case where voter fraud was an issue, look to the 2004 Washington state gubernatorial race. The initial count and first recount were in favor of the Republican candidate, Dino Rossi. The final recount was in favor of Christine Gregoire, by a margin of 133 votes. In the court battle that followed it was proven that there were at least 1600 fraudulent votes, primarily cast in King County (Seattle, a heavily Democratic stronghold), as well as numerous disenfranchised military personnel due to nearly 30,000 absentee ballots being sent later than the federally mandated date.

Because the Republicans could not prove for whom each and every fraudulent vote was cast (their proportional allotment proposal was thrown out by the judge), the judge ruled the election to be valid. The party that railed about disenfranchisement in Florida in 2000 and make every vote count had a different perspective in Washington in 2004, in a race where the proven fraud was more than ten times the margin of victory. And if this is discarded as being less important because it is a gubernatorial race, do you think that those fraudulent votes were cast without also checking off a presidential candidate?

We have had numerous tight races in the past decade, races where it doesn't require much fraud or disenfranchisement to change winners. We should be taking strong measures to make sure that the winners are legitimate.

[Gan]

What is the basis of the claim that actual voter fraud is uncommon? And on what basis can it be stated that the "bigger" issue is disenfranchisement. Is there anyone who thinks we should only be taking steps to address one while ignoring the other? I have yet to hear a reasoned rationale for not enforcing identity checks to confirm that the voter is an eligible voter and not voting more than once.

For a clear case where voter fraud was an issue, look to the 2004 Washington state gubernatorial race. The initial count and first recount were in favor of the Republican candidate, Dino Rossi. The final recount was in favor of Christine Gregoire, by a margin of 133 votes. In the court battle that followed it was proven that there were at least 1600 fraudulent votes, primarily cast in King County (Seattle, a heavily Democratic stronghold), as well as numerous disenfranchised military personnel due to nearly 30,000 absentee ballots being sent later than the federally mandated date.

Because the Republicans could not prove for whom each and every fraudulent vote was cast (their proportional allotment proposal was thrown out by the judge), the judge ruled the election to be valid. The party that railed about disenfranchisement in Florida in 2000 and make every vote count had a different perspective in Washington in 2004, in a race where the proven fraud was more than ten times the margin of victory. And if this is discarded as being less important because it is a gubernatorial race, do you think that those fraudulent votes were cast without also checking off a presidential candidate?

We have had numerous tight races in the past decade, races where it doesn't require much fraud or disenfranchisement to change winners. We should be taking strong measures to make sure that the winners are legitimate.

It only matters if you're the party thats losing. ;)

Thought you knew.

[Daniel]

You're so moderate Gan.

[Kefka]

What is the basis of the claim that actual voter fraud is uncommon? And on what basis can it be stated that the "bigger" issue is disenfranchisement. Is there anyone who thinks we should only be taking steps to address one while ignoring the other? I have yet to hear a reasoned rationale for not enforcing identity checks to confirm that the voter is an eligible voter and not voting more than once.

For a clear case where voter fraud was an issue, look to the 2004 Washington state gubernatorial race. The initial count and first recount were in favor of the Republican candidate, Dino Rossi. The final recount was in favor of Christine Gregoire, by a margin of 133 votes. In the court battle that followed it was proven that there were at least 1600 fraudulent votes, primarily cast in King County (Seattle, a heavily Democratic stronghold), as well as numerous disenfranchised military personnel due to nearly 30,000 absentee ballots being sent later than the federally mandated date.

Because the Republicans could not prove for whom each and every fraudulent vote was cast (their proportional allotment proposal was thrown out by the judge), the judge ruled the election to be valid. The party that railed about disenfranchisement in Florida in 2000 and make every vote count had a different perspective in Washington in 2004, in a race where the proven fraud was more than ten times the margin of victory. And if this is discarded as being less important because it is a gubernatorial race, do you think that those fraudulent votes were cast without also checking off a presidential candidate?

We have had numerous tight races in the past decade, races where it doesn't require much fraud or disenfranchisement to change winners. We should be taking strong measures to make sure that the winners are legitimate.

So purging thousands of voters is the answer?

[Gan]

You're so moderate Gan.

Damn dude, pretty soon you're going to have to move to the other leg.

[Daniel]

No problem.

[Gan]

So purging thousands of voters is the answer?

Hell no!

Vote early! Vote often!

Thats my new motto.

[Mabus]

So purging thousands of voters is the answer?
You looked at a well reasoned, fact filled post and only found that as a question?

How about answering the questions posed:

What is the basis of the claim that actual voter fraud is uncommon?


And on what basis can it be stated that the "bigger" issue is disenfranchisement.


Is there anyone who thinks we should only be taking steps to address one while ignoring the other?


I have yet to hear a reasoned rationale for not enforcing identity checks to confirm that the voter is an eligible voter and not voting more than once.

Those are all valid points of discussion around the topic. I would love to hear your, and others, answers regarding them.

[TheEschaton]

Vote suppression is a bigger issue. Not voter fraud. This took me all of 10 minutes to research, maybe you should spend the same amount of time researching what you say instead of blindly following it.

The Fraudulence of Voter Fraud (http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3135/the_fraudulence_of_voter_fraud/)


What’s more, despite GOP claims to the contrary, voter fraud is a very rare occurrence. In 2002 the Justice Department established the Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative to ferret out fraudulent voters. On Oct. 4, 2005, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, with great fanfare, proclaimed, “We’ve made enforcement of election fraud and corrupting offenses a top priority.” Yet according to an April 12 New York Times article, only 120 people have been charged with the crime over the past five years, leading to 86 convictions. Furthermore, the Times noted, federal attorneys say that most of the transgressions have been mistakes by immigrants and felons who simply misunderstood eligibility requirements.

The extent of voter fraud is further complicated by the fact that earlier this year the Election Assistance Commission changed the conclusions of a report it had commissioned. The original report by outside election experts concluded, “There is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling place fraud.” The commission deleted that sentence and replaced it with, “There is a great deal of debate on the pervasiveness of fraud.”



In regards to the 2004 governor's race in Washington, same article:


In Washington, fired U.S. Attorney John McKay had refused to prosecute alleged voter fraud in the 2004 Washington governor’s race, in which Democrat Chris Gregoire beat Republican Dino Rossi by 129 votes.

On March 6, McKay testified before the Senate that after the election Republicans pressured him to open an investigation. He said his office had examined the allegations of voter fraud and decided there was not enough evidence to pursue a case.

“Had anyone at the Justice Department or the White House ordered me to pursue any matter criminally in the 2004 governor’s election, I would have resigned,” McKay told the Seattle Times. “There was no evidence, and I am not going to drag innocent people in front of a grand jury.”



From the Wikipedia article on the 2004 governor's election in Washington, it says that the first machine count was well within the margins to trigger the automatic recount. The second recount still favored the Republican candidate, but by 200 fewer votes, making the margin 42 votes. UNDER WASHINGTON LAW, Gregoire had the right to demand a manual recount if she provided the money for it up front, which the Washington Democratic Committee did.

Then, we have interesting discovering of vote suppression, not by the Dems, but BY THE MACHINES!


King County Council Chairman Larry Phillips was at a Democratic Party office in Seattle on Sunday December 12, reviewing a list of voters whose absentee votes had been rejected due to signature problems, when to his surprise he found his own name listed. Phillips said he was certain he had filled out and signed his ballot correctly, and asked the county election officials to investigate the discrepancy. They discovered that Phillips' signature had somehow failed to be scanned into the election computer system after he submitted his request for an absentee ballot. Election workers claimed that they had received Phillips' absentee ballot in the mail, but they could not find his signature in the computer system to compare to the one on the ballot envelope, so they mistakenly rejected the ballot instead of following the standard procedure of checking it against the signature of Phillips' physical voter registration card that was on file. The discovery prompted King County Director of Elections Dean Logan to order his staff to search the computers to see if any other ballots had been incorrectly rejected.

Logan announced on December 13 that 561 absentee ballots in the county had been wrongly rejected due to an administrative error.[12] The next day, workers retrieving voting machines from precinct storage found an additional 12 ballots, bringing the total to 572 newly discovered ballots. Logan admitted the lost ballots were an oversight on the part of his department, and insisted that the found ballots be counted. On December 15, the King County Canvassing Board voted 2-1 in favor of counting the discovered ballots.

Upon examination of the discovered ballots, it was further discovered that, with the exception of two ballots, none of the ballots had been cast by voters whose surnames began with the letters A, B, or C.[13] There was a further search for more ballots, and on December 17, county workers discovered a tray in a warehouse with an additional 162 previously uncounted ballots.[13] All together, 723 uncounted or improperly rejected ballots were discovered in King County during the manual hand recount.

...

A Pierce County Superior Court judge ruled that ballots should not be counted, but on December 22, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that counties explicitly have the ability to correct ballot consideration errors made during earlier counts. Of those 732 ballots, 566 were accepted as having valid signatures and were added to the existing total on December 23. The final results of the hand count, as of December 23,[17] had Christine Gregoire ahead by 130 votes, which was later revised to 129 when it was discovered that Thurston County had added a vote after certification had been completed.[18] Since the recount results were in favor of the party requesting the recount, the Democrats were reimbursed the recount costs they had advanced to the state.

....

Bridges removed the five votes from the final count: four for Rossi and one for Ruth Bennett.[28] No evidence was brought before the court of any of the illegal votes benefitted Gregoire.[28] The final margin of victory for Gregoire over Rossi was 133 votes.[29] Rossi did not appeal to the state Supreme Court[30] and the Washington State Republican party settled the case after paying $15,000 in court costs to the Democrats.[31]

Judge Bridges' ruling was seen as a comprehensive defeat for Rossi.[citation needed][original research?] The judge admitted nearly every piece of evidence the Republican Party offered and then wrote a thorough, tough[original research?] opinion rejecting the Republicans' claims (while criticizing the administration of the election, particularly in King County);[citation needed] Rossi was left with very little legal ground for a successful appeal.[citation needed] After receiving such a negative verdict, Rossi declined to appeal to the State Supreme Court, claiming that the political makeup of the Court would make it impossible for him to win, thereby ending all legal challenges to the election of Gregoire as the Governor of Washington.[27]

[Tsa`ah]

What is the basis of the claim that actual voter fraud is uncommon?

Umm ... maybe because a politicized US dept of justice has only obtained 87 fraud convictions between 2002 and 2007?


And on what basis can it be stated that the "bigger" issue is disenfranchisement.

Percentages an ratios maybe? 87 fraud convictions vs how many hundreds of thousands ... even millions of voters disenfranchised between 2000 and 2004?

Which do you think is the bigger issue? A few thousand votes in various elections spread out all over the US that haven't had any impact on any election .... or millions of citizens having their rights stripped away?


Is there anyone who thinks we should only be taking steps to address one while ignoring the other? I have yet to hear a reasoned rationale for not enforcing identity checks to confirm that the voter is an eligible voter and not voting more than once.

What you consider reasonable doesn't necessarily mean it is reasonable. I'm all for identity checks ... but before that happens, every state will have to provide a free ID to their resident citizens (like Indiana). In fact, I believe a citizen requesting personal legal documents from the government should be at no charge. This way, every citizen obtaining an ID can also present their birth certificate. At that point each state will be able to issue an ID with state verification of citizenship.

Dump registration all together at that point and consider every citizen 18 years of age and older "registered".


For a clear case where voter fraud was an issue, look to the 2004 Washington state gubernatorial race. The initial count and first recount were in favor of the Republican candidate, Dino Rossi. The final recount was in favor of Christine Gregoire, by a margin of 133 votes. In the court battle that followed it was proven that there were at least 1600 fraudulent votes, primarily cast in King County (Seattle, a heavily Democratic stronghold), as well as numerous disenfranchised military personnel due to nearly 30,000 absentee ballots being sent later than the federally mandated date.

Because the Republicans could not prove for whom each and every fraudulent vote was cast (their proportional allotment proposal was thrown out by the judge), the judge ruled the election to be valid. The party that railed about disenfranchisement in Florida in 2000 and make every vote count had a different perspective in Washington in 2004, in a race where the proven fraud was more than ten times the margin of victory. And if this is discarded as being less important because it is a gubernatorial race, do you think that those fraudulent votes were cast without also checking off a presidential candidate?

First you have to understand that just because an article uses rhetoric such as "proven" doesn't really mean anything was proven. I doubt a judge would rule 1600 ballots, proven to be fraudulent, as valid. As far as the absentee ballots go ... rules are rules. Fight to change them.


We have had numerous tight races in the past decade, races where it doesn't require much fraud or disenfranchisement to change winners. We should be taking strong measures to make sure that the winners are legitimate.

The strong measure you're looking for is the removal of any entity's ability disenfranchise voters for any reason other than they're imprisoned or non-citizens. To take it a step further, make voter fraud and the attempt to subvert the will of the people's vote treason.

[Kefka]

You looked at a well reasoned, fact filled post and only found that as a question?

How about answering the questions posed:

Those are all valid points of discussion around the topic. I would love to hear your, and others, answers regarding them.

You act as if you're immune from these questions. It's funny since such questions were ignored in both 2000 and 2004 that put Bush in office twice. I remember hearing people say 'get over it' when people complained about voter intimidation and voter suppression. Now it's a huge problem when you feel your guy should have won a local election? I'm not going to pretend I know the answers on how to fix the massive amount of problems with our election system. What I do know is the largest problems are on the state level where secretaries of state purge voters by the thousands.

A simple search on the net gave me this info:

In the United States, fifty-two people have been convicted of federal election fraud for voting in multiple locations since 2002.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_fraud


Hardly worth purging a massive amount of voters, don't you think?

[Mabus]

You act as if you're immune from these questions. It's funny since such questions were ignored in both 2000 and 2004 that put Bush in office twice.
I stood against the fraud in Ohio in 2004, and spoke up about the SoS Harris issue with her purging "felons" using a Texas GOP-related company in 2000.

I may be voting for McCain this election, but do not confuse me with some staunch GOP supporter that does not see injustices.



A simple search on the net gave me this info:

In the United States, fifty-two people have been convicted of federal election fraud for voting in multiple locations since 2002.
And how many were convicted of illegally purging legitimate voters from the rolls?

I found 0. Perhaps you an find more?

If you find only 1 that would still make voter election fraud 52 times more of a problem.
;)

[Tsa`ah]

And how many were convicted of illegally purging legitimate voters from the rolls?

I found 0. Perhaps you an find more?

If you find only 1 that would still make voter election fraud 52 times more of a problem.
;)


Absolutely retarded.

There aren't any cases of illegal disqualification, because there are so many provisions to legally disqualify someone. You're using a straw man's tactic in this debate.

Stripping a law abiding, legal citizen of their rights should be an act of treason.

[Mabus]

There aren't any cases of illegal disqualification,
So you admit that on a federal prosecution level voter election fraud is a much larger problem.

Good.

[Tsa`ah]

Good.

So you admit you fuck goats.

[Mabus]

So you admit you fuck goats.
I am not sure I know your mother, but I did screw some hairy, burly women in my drunken days. Perhaps she was one?

[Tsa`ah]

but I did screw some hairy, burly women in my drunken days.

That's incest you stupid fuck.

[Kefka]

I stood against the fraud in Ohio in 2004, and spoke up about the SoS Harris issue with her purging "felons" using a Texas GOP-related company in 2000.

I may be voting for McCain this election, but do not confuse me with some staunch GOP supporter that does not see injustices.


And how many were convicted of illegally purging legitimate voters from the rolls?

I found 0. Perhaps you an find more?

If you find only 1 that would still make voter election fraud 52 times more of a problem.
;)

Hmmm... so you think because there were no arrests, it's not really a problem. You do understand that these are secretaries of state that control the process, right? I guess judges and panels getting involved is simply for the lack of anything better to do. Great logic there.

[Mabus]

Hmmm... so you think because there were no arrests, it's not really a problem.
Of course I think voter disenfranchisement is a problem.

HAVA was supposed to help address part of the problem, and has.

Currently, if you show up and they tell you you have been purged from the voter rolls you can request a provisional ballot. Upon providing proof that you were eligible your vote will be counted.


You do understand that these are secretaries of state that control the process, right?
Yes, and I helped make sure that Ken Blackwell of Ohio was defeated in his gubernatorial bid.


I guess judges and panels getting involved is simply for the lack of anything better to do. Great logic there.
We can differ on judicial philosophy (and likely do), but it should be up to the states to codify statutes for their election laws.

In the case of GA, it sounds as if they have previous rulings dealing with minority discrimination that drew that ruling.

In Ohio this was not the case, yet the ruling was similar in that the provisions of HAVA dealing with matching BMV and SS data with voter data has been set aside by the courts.

There should be a way to verify that newly registered voters are legal citizens of a state. HAVA was supposed to address this, but in at least two states (OH and GA) the courts have disallowed the BMV/SS checks called for by the federal law.

[Mabus]

That's incest you stupid fuck.
You did your mother too, goatboy? Was she still as smelly as I remember?

[Ogreslayer]

The large excerpt regarding missing votes found and added to Gregoire's tally is irrelevant to the topic of voter fraud. The point is that her margin of victory (or Rossi's margin of victory in the first two counts) was a fraction of the number of fraudulent votes.

Whether or not you want to believe that a judge would rule fraudulent votes as valid is also irrelevant, as it is a proven fact that it happened. In the Washington case, while it was proven that fraudulent votes were cast, the judge determined that it could not be proven who cast them or for whom. The burden of concrete proof of the benefactor could not be met. Therefore, with no way to extract those votes from the total, the tally including the fraudulent votes was allowed to stand, minus four or so for some convicted felons who admitted to casting votes, and there were no criminal charges pursued.

For an additional case, consider the 2004 Wisconsin presidential contest. The certified number of votes cast in Milwaukee was more than 4600 votes greater than the number of people who voted. While it did not result in changing the outcome of the election, a 102% vote return presented a clear case of fraud, though the U.S. Attorney investigating the case acknowledged that it would not be possible to prosecute in most cases. Kerry's margin of victory in Wisconsin was less than 12,000 votes, primarily boosted by his wide margin of 110,000 votes in Milwaukee county. In response to the clear fraud that occurred, the Wisconsin assembly passed a bill to require voters to provide photo IDs. The state governor, Jim Doyle (D), vetoed the bill, and the assembly fell short of the 2/3 majority required to override the veto.

The fact that only 87 or 52 people have been convicted of voter fraud in the last five years has little bearing on the pervasiveness of voter fraud compared to intentional disenfranchisement. By its very nature, voter fraud is very difficult to prove, even when the returns provide concrete evidence that it occurred (votes exceed actual voters). Even when it can be proven that a vote was fraudulently cast, ascertaining the benefactor of the fraudulent vote is usually impossible barring a confession. That is part and parcel with a secret ballot design (and no, I am not implying that we should eschew the secret ballot). A U.S. Attorney acknowledging that he has little solid evidence to pursue a specific case against a specific individual is not surprising, but it doesn't change the fact that the fraud occurred. Thus, it is imperative that voter fraud be addressed on the front end, prior to votes being cast.

There are always anecdotal reports of disenfranchisement occurring. The pervasiveness of disenfranchisement through intimidation, misinformation, or the like is also difficult to assess, as the burden of proof is difficult to meet. For criminal disenfranchisement through intimidation, misinformation, or what have you, I'm all for aggressively investigating claims and for substantially increasing the penalties in the event of convictions. For claims of disenfranchisement through purging, it is a necessary part of ensuring that the voter rolls are current, but the purging criteria need strong oversight to minimize errant purges. Purging claims, though, are largely mitigated by the HAVA requirement for provisional ballots in the event that a voter believes he has been errantly omitted from the rolls.

[TheEschaton]

The large excerpt regarding missing votes found and added to Gregoire's tally is irrelevant to the topic of voter fraud. The point is that her margin of victory (or Rossi's margin of victory in the first two counts) was a fraction of the number of fraudulent votes.

Whether or not you want to believe that a judge would rule fraudulent votes as valid is also irrelevant, as it is a proven fact that it happened. In the Washington case, while it was proven that fraudulent votes were cast, the judge determined that it could not be proven who cast them or for whom. The burden of concrete proof of the benefactor could not be met. Therefore, with no way to extract those votes from the total, the tally including the fraudulent votes was allowed to stand, minus four or so for some convicted felons who admitted to casting votes, and there were no criminal charges pursued.

For an additional case, consider the 2004 Wisconsin presidential contest. The certified number of votes cast in Milwaukee was more than 4600 votes greater than the number of people who voted. While it did not result in changing the outcome of the election, a 102% vote return presented a clear case of fraud, though the U.S. Attorney investigating the case acknowledged that it would not be possible to prosecute in most cases. Kerry's margin of victory in Wisconsin was less than 12,000 votes, primarily boosted by his wide margin of 110,000 votes in Milwaukee county. In response to the clear fraud that occurred, the Wisconsin assembly passed a bill to require voters to provide photo IDs. The state governor, Jim Doyle (D), vetoed the bill, and the assembly fell short of the 2/3 majority required to override the veto.

The fact that only 87 or 52 people have been convicted of voter fraud in the last five years has little bearing on the pervasiveness of voter fraud compared to intentional disenfranchisement. By its very nature, voter fraud is very difficult to prove, even when the returns provide concrete evidence that it occurred (votes exceed actual voters). Even when it can be proven that a vote was fraudulently cast, ascertaining the benefactor of the fraudulent vote is usually impossible barring a confession. That is part and parcel with a secret ballot design (and no, I am not implying that we should eschew the secret ballot). A U.S. Attorney acknowledging that he has little solid evidence to pursue a specific case against a specific individual is not surprising, but it doesn't change the fact that the fraud occurred. Thus, it is imperative that voter fraud be addressed on the front end, prior to votes being cast.

There are always anecdotal reports of disenfranchisement occurring. The pervasiveness of disenfranchisement through intimidation, misinformation, or the like is also difficult to assess, as the burden of proof is difficult to meet. For criminal disenfranchisement through intimidation, misinformation, or what have you, I'm all for aggressively investigating claims and for substantially increasing the penalties in the event of convictions. For claims of disenfranchisement through purging, it is a necessary part of ensuring that the voter rolls are current, but the purging criteria need strong oversight to minimize errant purges. Purging claims, though, are largely mitigated by the HAVA requirement for provisional ballots in the event that a voter believes he has been errantly omitted from the rolls.

Except:
1) None of those ballots were proven fraudulent. The judge specifically said they couldn't be shown to be fraudulent. In fact, it says there's no evidence to believe anything but what the election commissioner said - people were 'accidentally' not counted due to a typographical error - disenfranchised voters.

2) The 4 votes which were discounted were all from felons who voted for Rossi. The main allegation of fraud of these votes was the discrepancy of the numbers between the list of people who voted, and the actual numbers of ballots. However, the GOP furor drowned out the explanation that a) this was an initial tallying, b) it was normal for the number to be off, and c) the number difference usually dwindled to near 0 when it was checked, double checked, and certified, which, in this case, it did.

3) " On June 6, 2005, Judge John E. Bridges ruled that the Republican party did not provide enough evidence that the disputed votes were ineligible -or for whom they were cast- to overturn the election." IE, unable to prove fraudulence.

In summation: THERE WAS NEVER PROOF OF FRAUDULENT VOTING, just an (incorrect) inference based on unfinalized information.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

Not to mention, by the way, almost half of the so-called "fraudulent" votes were for Rossi (919 gain for Grigoire, 748 gain for Rossi).

[Ogreslayer]

Regarding your claim that the fraud benefitted Rossi, you are conflating two different numbers. In the final recount, Gregoire gained 919 votes compared to the previous count and Rossi gained 748 votes, for a net Gregoire gain of 171 votes. While those 919 + 748 = 1667 votes are similar in magnitude to the fraudulent votes, these are not the fraudulent votes. The votes you reference were votes that had been missed or errantly rejected and were subsequently correctly tallied.

Had the wikipedia article not been selectively quoted, this would have been clear. In the sentence immediately following your quote:

"Judge Bridges noted that there was evidence that 1,678 votes had been illegally cast throughout the state, but found that the only evidence submitted to show how those votes had been cast were sworn statements from four felons that they had voted for Rossi."

That is, there was no way to determine the benefactor of the 1678 illegal votes, thus they were not extracted from the tally. The judge rejected proportional reduction as an acceptable resolution. I believe he made the correct legal ruling, though it highlighted a failure of the system to prevent voter fraud and the inability to address voter fraud after the votes are cast.

[TheRoseLady]

What is the basis of the claim that actual voter fraud is uncommon? And on what basis can it be stated that the "bigger" issue is disenfranchisement. Is there anyone who thinks we should only be taking steps to address one while ignoring the other? I have yet to hear a reasoned rationale for not enforcing identity checks to confirm that the voter is an eligible voter and not voting more than once.



I read this some time ago.

http://truthaboutfraud.org/documents/policy_brief_voter_fraud.html

For the record, I have no issue with identity checks, but I disagree with arbitrary purging of voter registrations. Disfranchisement is not a separate issue entirely but many people lump everything together and call it "Voter Fraud".

What do identity checks have to do with telling people that they can't vote if the polls close when they are already in line? Or confusing ballots? Or robocalls that tell one party to vote on November 4 and another to vote on November 5?

None of it should be ignored, but it should not all be lumped under one label of "Voter Fraud".

[Gan]

Disfranchisement is not a separate issue entirely but many people lump everything together and call it "Voter Fraud".

Why then is voter disenfranchisement used as a defense or discussion neutralizer when voter fraud is brought up? Its almost as if its a Pavlovian response.

[TheRoseLady]

Why then is voter disenfranchisement used as a defense or discussion neutralizer when voter fraud is brought up? Its almost as if its a Pavlovian response.

I think that it's primarily due to people not understanding the differences. It kind of reminds me of ordering coffee when I'm back in NJ with my husband. Regular coffee to me is black and caffeinated. Regular coffee there is caffeinated with cream and sugar added.

Some folks think that voter fraud is voter intimidation. Some folks think that it's turning in bad registrations, other think that it's actually voting when you are ineligible for whatever reason (which is most definitely a criminal act.) People just have all sorts of thoughts on that catchall "Voter Fraud".

[Gan]

I think that it's primarily due to people not understanding the differences. It kind of reminds me of ordering coffee when I'm back in NJ with my husband. Regular coffee to me is black and caffeinated. Regular coffee there is caffeinated with cream and sugar added.

Some folks think that voter fraud is voter intimidation. Some folks think that it's turning in bad registrations, other think that it's actually voting when you are ineligible for whatever reason (which is most definitely a criminal act.) People just have all sorts of thoughts on that catchall "Voter Fraud".

So you think thats what happens here on the PC?

I dont think its a misconception here. I think its used as a means to stifle discourse.

[Ogreslayer]

What do identity checks have to do with telling people that they can't vote if the polls close when they are already in line? Or confusing ballots? Or robocalls that tell one party to vote on November 4 and another to vote on November 5?

None of it should be ignored, but it should not all be lumped under one label of "Voter Fraud".

Thank you for the link. I disagree with the advocacy group's perspective that there is more harm than good in pursuing Voter IDs, or that the magnitude of actual fraud is so small that steps to remedy identity fraud are unwarranted. The point that Voter IDs are no magic bullet and that numerous types of misconduct are unaddressed by Voter IDs is well taken.

[Mabus]

Some folks think that voter fraud is voter intimidation. Some folks think that it's turning in bad registrations, other think that it's actually voting when you are ineligible for whatever reason (which is most definitely a criminal act.) People just have all sorts of thoughts on that catchall "Voter Fraud".
I agree with you. The term has become overgeneralized and bandied about for political point-scoring by all sides.

It is in everyone's (well, every citizens') interest that only eligible voters can vote, that all eligible voters that want to vote be allowed to do so, that no one is intimidated, that campaign and media releases be truthful, that a chain of custody exist in cast votes and that transparency exist throughout the process.

We are far, far from a truthful, reliable, transparent and accountable system.

[TheRoseLady]

So you think thats what happens here on the PC?

I dont think its a misconception here. I think its used as a means to stifle discourse.

I think that there are probably a good measure of both here on the PC.

:love:

[TheRoseLady]

It is in everyone's (well, every citizens') interest that only eligible voters can vote, that all eligible voters that want to vote be allowed to do so, that no one is intimidated, that campaign and media releases be truthful, that a chain of custody exist in cast votes and that transparency exist throughout the process.

We are far, far from a truthful, reliable, transparent and accountable system.

QFT

[TheEschaton]

The judge determined there were 1,678 illegal votes cast during the November election, far fewer than the 2,820 Republicans had alleged.

Of those, Bridges said none were shown to have voted for Gregoire.

But he said that four votes from felons who testified they voted for Rossi should be deducted from Rossi's total.

Gregoire won the election by 129 votes, according to a hand recount.

"Say 133!" Democrat lawyers and party members hammed while posing for a picture in the law firm lobby.

"Coming up with 617 felons is one of the most impressive efforts. Really it was a very large group effort," said Hamilton during a toast to the team of about 30 lawyers and data gatherers who helped shape Democrats' case.

"Let's not forget going through 248,000 ballot envelopes in a week -- one week," added Democrat lawyer David McDonald, referring to a step in the process required by the judge to verify illegal votes.

This is from the original source in the Wiki article. It seems to imply to me that had the GOP merely provided testimony of illegal votes by felons, they would have gotten those votes discounted. They didn't (couldn't?). And the Democrats lined up a potential 617 felons to do...what?

[Gan]

I think that there are probably a good measure of both here on the PC.

:love:

LOL Touche.

Positive rep for this post as soon as I can give more. :)