In-Person Voter Fraud: Not Really a Matter of Opinion

[babylonsister]

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/09/voter-fraud-not-really-matter-opinion-new-york-times


In-Person Voter Fraud: Not Really a Matter of Opinion

—By Kevin Drum
| Sat Sep. 15, 2012 4:00 PM PDT


After running a story about voter access laws last Sunday, the New York Times got some complaints from readers about its he-said-she-said treatment of whether voter fraud is a serious problem. Margaret Sullivan, the Times' public editor, asked the reporter and editor of the piece for their views:

The national editor, Sam Sifton, rejected the argument. “There’s a lot of reasonable disagreement on both sides,” he said. One side says there’s not significant voter fraud; the other side says there’s not significant voter suppression. “It’s not our job to litigate it in the paper,” Mr. Sifton said. “We need to state what each side says.”

Mr. Bronner agreed. “Both sides have become very angry and very suspicious about the other,” he said. “The purpose of this story was to step back and look at both sides, to lay it out.” While he agreed that there was “no known evidence of in-person voter fraud,” and that could have been included in this story, “I don’t think that’s the core issue here.”

This is a pretty remarkable response. I don't have a problem with giving both sides some air time, but by far the main focus of the voter access battle is stringent photo ID laws — and the only real justification for stringent photo ID laws is that it stops in-person voter fraud. (That is, the kind of fraud where people show up in person at a polling place and pretend to be someone they aren't. Even in theory, photo ID laws can't stop any other kind of fraud.) This means that the existence of in-person voter fraud is exactly the core issue. If you don't address the truth of that claim, you simply haven't done a good job of informing your readership.

And apparently Bronner knows this. He agrees that there's no known evidence of in-person voter fraud. So why on earth would he not make that clear in a story about voter ID laws? This wouldn't require him to take a stand on the laws themselves, only to point out to readers in his own voice that in-person voter fraud basically doesn't exist. They can then draw their own conclusions about whether voter ID laws are a good idea anyway and what the motivation for them is.

There are plenty of gray areas in the fight over voter access, which includes things like early voting hours, voter roll purging, and so forth. But on the specific subject of voter ID laws there are two clear facts: (a) the primary justification for the laws is in-person voter fraud, and (b) in-person voter fraud doesn't exist. Anyone writing about the subject is doing a disservice if they don't acknowledge this.

[Butterbean]

1. It happened to my husband in 2008.

He went to vote early, and was told he had already voted. He filed a complaint with the BOE and everything. It exists, it happened in my family. Maybe it doesn't happen on the grand scale that the GOP would like to have everybody believe, but to say it doesn't exist is crap, because it does, and it did happen, and it happened to my freaking husband.

[LiberalFighter]

2. It doesn't happen as much as you think either.

What usually happens in that situation is that clerk or election worker screwed up. There needs to be a better process when voters sign in and the election workers need to better qualified to do the job. One of the things that needs to happen on a wider scale is election workers working fewer hours. 12 to 15 hours is way too long.

[Butterbean]

3. We'll never know. My husband and I are both very regular voters in all the big

and small elections, so who knows what happened. We were both shocked and pissed. We got the results of our filing with the BOE 6 weeks after the election was certified.

It might have been a mistake but it might have been fraud. I don't think it's rampant, but I also don't think it is non existent.

[rgbecker]

5. Are you actually saying that someone went to your place of voting...

gave your husband's name, took and filled the ballot or did the machine or whatever? Then what...do you think he went to the back of the line and came in again, gave another name etc. in some weird attempt to swing the election? Was it an old friend playing a joke on your husband? WTF? What were the results of your filing with the BOE....you gotta tell me more as this is the most amazing concept I have ever heard. Now, maybe if the guy was serious, he would have a list of dead people or people who moved out of town and he would come in and say their name and get a ballot and do it again and again until he got his guy in, but to use your husband's name, picked from random out of all the names on the voters list seems a bit far fetched. Maybe it was a mistake when the checker in guy checked off the name.

Just saying.

[Butterbean]

15. I am saying

that when my husband walked into the early voting site and gave his name and address to the poll worker, he was told, 'You have already voted.' Voter registration is a matter of public record, and in NC you do not have to produce id. So yes, the scenario where a stranger who did not know my husband but had looked his name and address up on public voting records, and had intentions to vote twice in the 2008 election, went to the polling place and gave my husband's name and address in early voting, then went and voted at their regular precinct.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. No, we don't think it was a joke. My husband had to go before a BOE review board. Because they could not determine who cast the other ballot, they decided that both votes would count. I guess in that sense, technically his vote was not taken from him, only his identity, which is still skeezy.

[rgbecker]

18. So basically, you haven't got any evidence that there was someone doing anything.

It could have been a clerk checking off the wrong line or even misunderstanding the name. What would be someone's incentive to vote twice, risking getting caught for voter fraud. Are a lot of elections decided by less than 10 votes down there? Did a lot of people in your precinct have a similar problem? Did it change the outcome? Where do they list the "Public voting records"? At the polling station or at the town hall or on the internet?

Pardon me, but I think this is crazy talk.

[Butterbean]

20. Pardon me if this doesn't mesh with your world view and the way you think

things should be. It is not crazy talk. Public voting records are available online. Just because you don't think something is real and it doesn't fit in with how you view things does not make it wrong or false. It happened, in 2008, in Durham county NC. It happened to my husband. You might not like hearing such things, and therefore are quick to dismiss them as false or "crazy talk," but that does not mitigate the fact that this actually did happen and is real.

Someone's incentive for voting twice in an election seems quite obvious to me: more votes for their candidate. Our state was a battleground state last election, and every vote did indeed matter. Why would someone risk getting caught committing voter fraud? If they deem the risk is higher that their candidate might lose if they don't commit fraud, then they may be so inclined to choose fraud based on the simple assessment as it is a means to an end.

I have no idea why you're getting so analytical about it. It happened. Sorry if you don't like that. Doesn't change the fact that it happened, doesn't make it any less true.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

4. I agree that the days are too long

The problem is that there are never enough volunteers - I worked from 4:00 AM to 10:00 PM in a Virginia precinct in 2008, and it was packed all day long.

While I agree that it doesn't happen as often as the GOP claims, it does happen. And it isn't always a matter of the clerk marking off the wrong name. The problem was that in Virginia, if a voter didn't have ID, they simply had to give the correct address and then sign an affadavit swearing that they were who they claimed to be.

This year, if a voter doesn't have ID, they can vote a provisional ballot, and then provide ID within a certain period of time, or their vote won't be counted.

[LiberalFighter]

6. Provisional ballots should be avoided at all cost.

Every effort needs to be done to ensure the voter gets to cast a real ballot that will be counted. With a provisional, there is the risk that the voter will not follow through with the documentations demanded to allow the vote to count.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

7. Agreed

And it's very simple to bring ID, as it doesn't have to be picture ID. All Virginia voters will receive new voter cards beginning in October, and the voter ID will fulfill the ID requirement. But, no ID, and the only option will be provisional ballot.

[LiberalFighter]

13. Here in Indiana a voter card would not be suitable. It has to have a photo.

[LiberalFighter]

8. I found out a few years ago that Marion County in Indiana has 2 shifts for workers.

I confirmed that it could be done checking the Indiana Code. Personally, I think it would be easier to fill polls if positions can be by shifts. In our situation, there would be two positions that would require someone to work the full shift. It would be the Inspector and the Judge from the opposing party. In our county, nearly a thousand positions have to be filled. Our party fills 431 of them for this election.

[LiberalFighter]

10. When you say volunteers...

they are not paid?

Ours are paid $85 base and receive $10 for training and there is additional pay for our Judges. Other counties in our state pay more and some pay less.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

11. There was no pay when I did it

I don't know if that was the county (Fairfax) or the state of Virginia.

We attended a three hour training class, then filled out our preferences for where we would like to work. You had to declare a party (Democratic or Republican only), and you had to mark off a box stating whether or not you would be willing to represent the opposing party if no one from that party could be found to work at your assigned precinct.

The representation part had to do with the fact that all tally sheets, strips over ballot boxes, precinct paperwork, etc., had to be signed by at least one representative from each major party.

[rgbecker]

19. For it to be fraud, I think it has to be intentional.

I just don't see the incentive to risk getting caught for getting one more vote. If lots of people showed up and were told they already had voted, wouldn't that raise a red flag? For it to make any sense it would certainly take more than one or two guys to throw the results so why would anyone bother? Maybe as a little personal rebellion or as a joke on a neighbor but come on...think about it for a minute. While you were a worker, did you ever catch anyone giving false ID? People trying to vote twice? You say it does happen, were you ever involved in tracking down the forger and finding out his incentive? Just wondering.

[jsmirman]

9. I guarantee you, that is not what "voter fraud" BS gets at

I have no idea what happened to you, but let me assure you that when claims are made of "voter fraud," they are not suggesting some grand conspiracy to have people vote in the place of other legitimately registered people.

Partially because, you know, that would draw a heck of a lot of attention, with actual people to actually complain about it - unlike say this "voter fraud" thing they claim exists, even though no one can state that they've ever seen it (even allowing for retrospect, no one has examples!!!).

"Voter fraud" is the idea that there is somehow this vast army of false identities, of bogus registrations, that are skewing election results with votes cast by non-existent people. Only any reality one would attach to such a thing is... non-existent.

It's no better than comedy. I've registered many, many voters, brought the registration cards to the county offices, and seen how they process those cards. They check against their records. No record of "Bob Loblaw"? No match to an actual citizen who they have documentation on, in terms of that person both existing and claiming residency? No "Bob Loblaw" added to the voter rolls.

"Voter fraud" is nothing but laughable bullshit.

Because as the process described above details, you can fill out as many registration cards for Mickey Mouse as you want, but Mickey Mouse ain't voting in the election. Trust me, it's not happening.

Which is why the ACORN "scandal" was so painfully bogus. Yes, someone was defrauded. ACORN. The victim of the fraud sure as heck wasn't the U.S. Government or the sanctity of the voting rolls. ACORN got screwed by some of their hired contractors, because if you're ACORN and you've paid a rate for the work put in to end up with a stack of "X" registration cards, but 30% of those cards are filled in on behalf of Professor Xavier, Donald Duck, Olive Oil, and Wile E. Coyote, you've got cards that aren't even worth the paper they are printed on. ACORN would never turn such cards in, because the result would be obvious. And if somehow they did turn them in, they wouldn't go anywhere with a county board of elections. "Olive Oil" will never turn into an actual new voter added to the rolls unless someone's parents had a sick sense of humor and named them that, and so there is an actual person involved.

[LiberalFighter]

12. I've seen property records that don't match the voting records.

Meaning the name is misspelled or other reasons. All completed by clerks. When it gets crunch time more errors are likely to occur. And then they also have to deal with poor penmanship by the voter or they don't know how to spell the name of their street.

I've been checking data from a company with the employees. The company started having all data completed online by the employee which is not a good idea. Besides having spelling issues the city or zip may be inputted wrong. They don't have it set up for instance to just input the zipcode and the city and state automatically is entered. They don't have the addresses finalized with post office standardized addresses.

[jsmirman]

14. There are property records that don't match birth records, not sure of your point

we learn about this in Property class - there are misspellings in all sorts of deeds, and different places deal with such situations differently.

But again, I'm not sure what you're driving at.

The point is that the process involves a county board of elections official attempting to match a voter registration card to county records that reflect that person's existence. When a street name is misspelled, the elections official will either be clever or resourceful and figure out who the person on that registration card actually is, and create a voter record or that official will not be so clever or resourceful or it will prove far too difficult, and that registration isn't going through.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say.

I do know that any commentary that obscures the basic, essential, and desperately important point - that systematic voter fraud in these present United States is no more real than the Tooth Fairy - is not a good thing.

I'll assume you're making some sort of other point that I'm just not grasping here.

[struggle4progress]

16. what county was that?

[Butterbean]

17. Durham.