I can't wait for further details to unfold, particularly any details which suggest they were persuaded to vote illegally by Democrats, or if they were offered any sort of inducements to vote illegally (by Democrats) or even any statement which might, in the course of the trials, indicate what party they voted for illegally in 2008. You know - those details which are essential to the so-far unsupported accusations of voter fraud to steal elections by Democrats that are so casually being tossed around by the right.
________________________
The right has made the utterly false, misleading and demeaning claim about Democrats stealing elections for years now. Repetition of the lie by moral panic profiteers has not made it any more true. These accusations undermine the validity and legitimacy of our election system. They smear our form of government for political gain by one side of the political spectrum - that is shameful.
Broadcaster Hugh Hewitt's book peddling moral panic, "If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat: Crushing the Democrats in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends on It", claimed cheating, back in 2004 and he continues to claim it. My friend and mentor in blogging, Mitch Berg over on Shot in the Dark, periodically repeats the lies of election fraud without considering it with critical thought first, blindly parroting what he has heard; he is far from alone doing this in the 'blogosphere'.
Groups like the Minnesota Majority (supported by Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer) claim rampant voter fraud by Democrats. Another group is plastering bus shelters with posters about election fraud. Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, and Minnesota Congresswoman Bachmann Michele Bachmann, of the can't-pass-a-fact-check-even-once-liar fame broadly made the same claim recently to the media, especially on Fox News. In that charade, they claimed to rely on a study by Chair of the Sociology Department at the University of Minnesota, Chris Uggen, an expert in voting disenfranchisement, completely and shamelessly misrepresenting the content of the study, claiming it showed Democrats were felons who voted illegally.
I should say sort-of-Congresswoman - Bachmann has the worst attendance rating for our state's reps in Congress, does nothing for her district, spends the most of any politician from Minnesota in the House, and has not written any meaningful legislation, and has voted against legislation that would benefit her constituents. Bachmann appears to be more of an employee of Fox Not-the-News than she does a civil servant to her constituents. Like Fox Not-the-News, Bachmann displays a complete disregard for making even minimal effort to issue fact-based statements, including on the subject of voter fraud.
I will stipulate here that there is more voter registration fraud by far than there is actual fraudulent voting. But expanding on that issue of voter registration fraud, what is considered fraud for the purpose of compiling those statistics show the vast majority of those 'voter registration frauds' are innocent duplicates, simply legal voters making a duplicate voter registration, apparently unclear if they were or were not already registered. This belt-AND-suspenders kind of duplication is as opposite from attempting to vote fraudulently as it is possible to be different. People are not prosecuted for this kind of duplication, nor should they be; it would be silly. But they DO add to the numbers that turn up under the heading of voter REGISTRATION fraud, because they turn up in the routine cross checks that are used to monitor the integrity of the voter registration data base. And then there are the voter registrations that are clearly not serious - although they are annoying to those who maintain the actual voter database - that register, as a joke, as Donald Duck, or King Tut. What is important to note about those specious joke registrations is that there are no voters actually using those registrations to vote fraudulently. They are simply a clerical nuisance.
However the right, in ginning up the base, selling books and otherwise profiting by retailing moral panic fail to make clear is how few, incredibly few instances there are of any actual deliberate felony voter fraud. I include here pertinent excerpts from the ElectionLaw.org blog by guest author, professor, and Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute, Dr. Michael McDonald that illustrate why the claims about voter fraud are simply WRONG, and suspect as partisan politics at their worst. I would reiterate - this is just one source consistent with other credible investigations into voter fraud allegations.
"According to a report produced by Minnesota Majority, to date 10 of 2,921,147 ballots were found to be illegally cast in the 2008 Minnesota general election, for a rate of 0.0003%. Even if all of these illegal ballots included recorded votes cast for Sen. Franken, this is insufficient to alter the outcome of a 225 vote margin."
"There are solid reasons to suspect that Minnesota Majority has overstated the number of illegal votes. Their report begins with describing simple matching procedures between the voter file and a list of felons on only name (first, last, and middle) and birth year, which will generate a number of false positive matches. So, the number of 1,359 individuals citing repeatedly in the report, 899 in Hennepin and 460 in Ramsey, should be dismissed as a clear over-estimate. (Why is it always the Democratic areas that are only investigated?) Assuming that Minnesota Majority performed the simple matching procedure correctly as they described without further massaging the data, which is what the New Jersey Republican Party did to inflate the number of false matches in allegations of double voting that used similar database matching procedures."
"As Justin Levitt and I have argued in an article published in The Election Law Journal, and the Brennan Center has discussed in greater detail in a report on database matching procedures, a simple match alone is insufficient evidence in support of an illegal vote."
"I find it distasteful to publicize names of people in the Minnesota Majority report whose charges were dismissed, perhaps because they were flagged due to the bad luck of having the same name and birth year as a felon. If this is the case, Minnesota Majority caused and continues to cause these people emotional distress and should desist this misguided vigilante justice. I also think it is clearly disingenuous for Minnesota Majority to state the failure by the county Attorneys General to investigate 1,359 individuals is evidence of a "gross travesty of justice" when their own checks of unknown quality winnow this number down to 341. At best, that is the number that should be cited, minus those where the allegations have been investigated and dismissed. I find this not only to be political grandstanding meant to cast doubt on the 2008 election, but disrespectful of law enforcement officials whose resources are likely stretched thin by budget cuts." (emphasis added - DG)This simply addresses the egregious flaws in the methodology of Minnesota Majority, and their political intention.
What it does not address is critical thinking about the very allegation of voter fraud.
1. First, we do not have demonstrable voter fraud, certainly not sufficient to alter elections as is alleged by the right. The numbers are simply NOT THERE.
2. Secondly, we do not have any kind of evidence to support the claim there is an attempt by Democrats to induce people to vote illegally, which is an essential element of the accusation that Democrats are 'stealing' or 'cheating to win' elections. This presupposes not only that there are a larger number of fraudulent votes, it is predicated on the idea that Democrats willingly engage in organizing the soliciting of hundreds, even thousands of felonies. Minnesota Majority doesn't provide any evidence to support this.
This is ludicrous, and it is beyond insulting. It is stupid on the face of it. Conveniently - to avoid any libel, slander or defamation suits, the right ALWAYS leaves this vague, never ever naming names. Anytime someone sees accusations that are this serious....but the perpetrators are left this vague, it should prompt a more critical examination than has been supplied so far.
3. While what takes place when anyone votes is not verifiable, the Minnesota Majority and others have no qualms about making the unfounded claim that these non-existant fraudulent votes apparently uniformly benefit Democrats. Some of the explanations offered up by self-proclaimed righties for this ludicrous claim is that it is because Democrats are morally bankrupt. These are the sorts of claims that are made by the right about people who have an honest disagreement over politics with them, not claims supported by facts. This is the same world-view that believed anything James O'Keefe said about ACORN, no matter how stupid those claims were, no matter how demonstrably false they were if someone looked at the record of that now-defunct organization, and without regard for the results of formal legal investigations. These are the classic, "Don't confuse me with the facts!" folks. Their reasoning? All those righties insist they needed to know was what was presented to them in heavily doctored, deceptive videos. Because if one of their own lied to them, they would believe it because they wanted to believe it, no matter how patently false. This is the epitome of "Moral Panic", and the voter fraud claims are just one more in what has become an overall strategy and tactic by the right. Sadly, apparently far too few on the right ever heard of fact checking, or bother to do so.
While the actual process of voting IS private, and not directly verifiable, I find it stupid to assume that anyone who is under investigation for voter fraud wouldn't roll over and give up someone who induced them to vote illegally, in a plea bargain deal. As the Election Law blog post noted - there have been nine or ten convictions. You can be sure that during the investigation, these people were asked who they voted for, and if anyone else persuaded or induced them to vote illegally. So far I haven't found a single instance of a convicted fraudulent voter asserting that someone else encouraged them to vote illeally, even though it could plausibly reduce the consequences of their felony. Minnesota Majority doesn't provide this essential component to their accusations of voter fraud.
4. IF there were widespread instances of voter fraud, there would be some kind of trail - a money trail, or evidence of other inducements to commit these alleged felonies. There is no such trail or pattern. If someone WAS soliciting fraudulent votes, it is likely that they would not be successful in persuading every person they approached to vote illegally. We have no reports of people unsuccessfully attempting to persuade people to vote fraudulently either.
It is even more stupid than the other problems with these false claims to believe that people are motivated to vote fraudulently 'just for the heck of it', rather than for some kind of reward. The crime is a felony. There is no thrill associated with it, no sexual release, no drug high, no joy riding thrill, no gratification of revenge. Voting is something people do because they feel an involvement with their community, as a responsibility. It often involves standing in line. There are known methods of uncovering such fraud; it is not purely on the honor system. Sadly, it has been my experience that the righties don't have much familiarity with those procedures that cross check voter records, so they find it more convenient to believe these lies in their ignorance. I would refer anyone reading this post to check out their state's Secretary of State web page to see what those measures are in their state.
In fact, as recorded in the studies done by Professor Chris Uggen, U of Minnesota Sociology Dept. chair, recognized as one of the leading authorities in this country, one could say in the world, on this issue, not only do felons vote in tragically small numbers, but it is in the interest of our communities to get them to vote more than they do now. Former felons who vote after their voting rights are reinstated are far less likely to re offend precisely BECAUSE of their perception of involvement in the community.
So, we have in summation crackpot claims that are based on badly flawed methodology, we have a complete failure to demonstrate that these fraudulent votes would have benefited Democrats - or any other political party over another - and we have no indication that anyone, anywhere, at any time on behalf of Democrats attempted to solicit fraudulent votes, or that any inducement has ever been offered to a single individual.
Republicans and other conservatives and right wing political adherents should object to these accusations; they should resist, strongly, by fact checking these accusations to prevent the manipulation of their emotions and their political beliefs.
To my friend Mitch, and to governor-wanna-be Emmer, and to Pawlenty and Bachmann and Hugh Hewitt and all the rest -- shame on you. Back up your claims of voter fraud, or back down from them. Quit lying to your base. Stop profiting from deliberate misinformation and disinformation.
To the people who naively believe these claims of Democratic voter fraud: The people making these claims are dishonest, they are NOT your friends. Smarten up, and do a little fact checking for god's sake; think critically instead of believing the excrement of these false claims.
We are better than this, or should be.
I think you mean "voter registration ERRROR" not voter registration fraud (or should). It may be that we call innocent mistake in registration "fraud", but that is in itself a fraud. Fraud is the INTENTIONAL deception/distortion of truth for gain. The legal term, as I understand it, is Mens Rea, meaning willful purpose. There is no Mens Rea here. Nor is there a wonton disregard (e.g. depraved indifference) to the outcome of negligent act(s), the generally accepted stand-in for intent. These are innocent duplications - and thus AREN'T, by definition, fraudulent. Consequently, it's not even correct to say this is a conflation. Voter registration ERROR isn't on the same planet as the words VOTE FRAUD. On involves mistkes in registration, the other involves trying to cheat the system.
ReplyDeleteHowever, when a group uses the "fear" of vote fraud to attempt to intrude upon the lawful voting of people whom they don't like the voting patterns of, then you might well have a case for claiming fraud. In fact, I think THAT's the only real fraud going on. People are using whipped up fears to fraudulently and with ill-intent prevent those who SHOULD be allowed to vote, from doing so - and for the purpose of winning elections they might not otherwise win. In short, Hewitt's comment is correct, except he has the shoe on the wrong foot. For years the right has used fantasy claims of vote fraud to illegally and immorally disenfranchise poor and minority voters as a way to cheat to win elections. If the votes aren't close, they can't succeed. Hewitt's title is a watchword for those who oppose this kind of bullying - it just happens that those who should oppose it are not conservatives. I actually think that's not a surprise to conservatives by the way.
Here is an excellent paper done by the Brennan School of Law of the New York University Law School. It speaks specifically the reasons behind this fraud calling itself concern about voter fraud.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.brennancenter.org/content/resource/policy_brief_on_the_truth_about_voter_fraud/
This was in Texas and quite some time ago but my mother's grandfather was a Texas Ranger and frequently had former sherriffs and other law enforcement over to visit. She told me she still remembers when Lyndon Johnson became a Senator. She was at her Grandpas and a sherriff from some other county was visiting. He was laughing and saying he hoped LBJ remembered who helped him out because when he ran for the house or representatives he made sure all the dead people in his county voted for him. Now that was 1937 and there were no computers to check the voter rolls against anything so things like that could happen.
ReplyDeleteTuck, you DO know that voter registration checking goes back to the founding fathers, in the 18th century, and did not just come into existence with the advent of computers, right?
ReplyDeleteThere has ALWAYS been voter roll checking, GOOD voter roll checking, for confirm legitimate voters and to prohibit voter fraud.
You describe the kind of anectdotal evidence of voter fraud that is so problematic with mistaken beliefs about the occurrence. You apparently find it plausible that legal authorities - in this case sheriffs - would brag about being guilty of voter fraud to other law enforcement officers.
I don't find the notion as a serious support for voter fraud at all plausible.
I think the sheriff who said that was joking - as you yourself note, he was laughing when he said it.
Absent any other proof that a dead voter turned up in supporting LBJ to the senate, I think you need to be a whole lot more skeptical.
There have been this kind of rumor for years, most notably in Chicago politics. The actual proven exmaples are incredibly thin on the ground.
But I will share with you my OWN example of family history and voter fraud. Way back in the early 1800s, my father's side of the family first came to this country from Germany escaping the Napoleonic wars, there is an instance turned up in genealogy searches that is more plausible - at least supported by something tangible.
One of the two brothers who founded different branches of the family is alleged to have agreed to vote for a crooked politician - in Missouri, in the second quarter of the 1800s, prior to moving up the Mississippi river to settle permanently in MN - in exchange for citizenship papers. (Missouri became a state in 1821, btw.)
Those citizenship papers track with the local election period. More significant, that man's first name was originally Valentine; on the citizenship papers it lists him as 'George' -- which is the name he used when voting for the rest of his life, and for other legal documents. The family always called him by his given name of Valentine. That man is in our family reported to have regretted taking that illegal shortcut to citizenship for the rest of his life, btw, and to have frequently told other younger family members never ever to do anything similar.
So, I'm not saying it never happens, only that there needs to be some proof of inducement, of payment or payoff, and some real person involved on behalf of a party.
And fyi - the illegal vote where that earlier relative was offered citizenship in exchange for voting? It was for a conservative early version that later morphed into the GOP. The family has always been politically conservative.
Tuck (and everyone else)...
ReplyDeleteBenjamin Franklin used to say "Three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead."
Franklin's point has been repeated time and again in courts and in investigations of racketeering. The issue in "getting dead people to vote" or having people in large numbers vote in multiple pricincts or even just vote twice, is that there is virtually NO way to keep that quiet. Republicans don't trust Democratic Congressmen to keep state secrets, why do you seem to think Democratic rank and file would be willing to go to prison to incrementally influence a race by 1 vote per 10 year prison sentence, but more, how do you possibly think you'd keep that secret? One person, somewhere, would want to get paid by Faux News at least. Quite simply, the concept, the assertion is laughably ridiculous.
My father is the most honest person I've ever know or known of. I was recently talking to someone about Chicago politics under Richard Daley. My father was part of the extended famaily of the "Daley Machine" which ran Chicago for the better part of 5 decades. There were numerous allegations of cheating, but virtually NO actual proof. If I recall correctly, in 1960 there was ONE seemingly provable case of someone taking people from one pricinct to another - one, in 40 years... My father would have NEVER, not once, not in a million years, allowed for fraudulent voting to have gone on in his presence - and dammned few, DAMNED few Democrats I've ever known would have either. He'd have told someone, he'd have told vote judges - if he'd ever seen it, heard of it/known of it. And that's the problem, you can't keep a secret among 3 people, let alone 3000 or 300,000. It's the same reason the meme' about scientists conspiring to LIE about global warming is so dumb.. they might not agree with someone who denies the earth is warming, they might even MOCK that person, but they'd not be able to conspire among 100,000 scientists to make stuff up and then everyone keep quiet about it.
The PROVABLE incidence of vote fraud is something like .00009%, which is 9 votes in 10,000,000. Meaning the PROVABLE incidence is meaningless, and certainly the cure (preventing 10% of the electorate from voting) is FAR worse, and FAR too "big brother" for the problem - stories prove nothing, and the logic suggests (logic of our founders btw) that the concern is hype or worse, foolishness.
Any type of criminal fraud generally requires intent, and you're correct, the concept is known as mens rea or "evil mind". However, intent can be formed by many things. Being a felon and knowingly registering to vote and voting constitutes intent, and therefore, its probably voting fraud. The same would be true if a non-citizen registered and voted, because one of the questions on the registration form in most states is "Are you a citizen of the United States?" Answering yes to that question then opens one up to a charge of perjury and potential voting fraud charges.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, Penigma. The policy paper is timely and informative.