Saturday, February 4, 2012

Multiple Convictions of Voter Fraud by the Republican Secretary of State of Indiana

"If we aren't going to enforce election law against the secretary of state of Indiana, who are we going to enforce it against?" Sigler said.

Brizzi, White's attorney, rested Thursday without presenting a defense.

The Republicans are consistently trying to pass more exclusionary voting laws, laws which appear to disenfranchise those groups who are more likely to vote for democratic candidates than for conservative candidates.

So it is in that context that the convictions of the Indiana Secretary of State is particularly poignant.  I think we can fairly say the entire Republican effort to make it harder to vote is an attempt to game the system, to create a false problem, and then create a solution that is an expansion of government, an intrusion by government that serves their partisan purposes.

This wasn't just ordinary voter fraud, this was voter fraud committed by the person the Republicans ran to be the top person in the state who should have been responsible for PREVENTING voter fraud. Instead, he was committing it.  And Republicans KEPT HIM ON THE JOB as long as they possibly could, which suggests they support voter fraud.  They certainly did nothing to prevent it, they did nothing to acknowledge the concerns raised by the prosecution of this man for voter fraud.  It is precisely because White's claims of NOT living at the condo address were PROVEN false that he has perjury convictions.

Bottom line, when it benefits their political agenda, Republicans do not really care a damn about voter fraud, so long as it benefits them.  They are hypocrites who would emphatically have called for the removal of a Democratic Secretary of State during such a prosecution, and this Republican Secretary of State, and the Republicans nationwide would have happily accused and prosecuted others for this, but when it was one of their own, they kept him in office.  They knew that there were serious reasons to believe his election was not valid.  I applaud the prosecutor who did NOT allow politics to enter into this pursuit of justice.

But to now go further and try to claim the governor has the right to appoint the successor to someone who was not legally elected, who commited voter fraud, but to claim that clean elections are so important we must keep LARGE numbers of people from voting?

THAT is hypocrisy.

From the AP by way of  MSNBC.com
Yup - we're back!
Indiana election chief found guilty of voter fraud
'We believe it was about someone who violated the law and cheated the system — and gamed the system,' prosecutor says


By CHARLES WILSON

updated 2 hours 56 minutes ago 2012-02-04T13:00:33


Indiana's top elections official could lose his job and his freedom after jurors convicted him of multiple voter fraud-related charges Saturday, leaving in flux the fate of one of the state's most powerful positions.


Republican Secretary of State Charlie White has held on to his office for more than a year despite being accused of lying about his address on voter registration forms.


A Hamilton County jury found White guilty of six of seven felony charges, including false registration, voting in another precinct, submitting a false ballot, theft and two counts of perjury. He was acquitted on one fraud charge.


White expressed no outward emotion as the verdict was read, and later said outside the courtroom: "'I'm disappointed for my family and the people who supported me."


White and his attorneys said the fate of his elected post remains unknown and ultimately may have to be decided by the governor or state supreme court. "We will review our options," he said.


Record of public service


White's attorney, Carl Brizzi, said he will ask the judge to reduce the charges to misdemeanors because his client has no criminal background and has a long record of public service.


The jury verdict came after a weeklong trial in which White, who had vigorously protested the charges in hearings before a state elections panel, presented no defense.

Prosecutors said he used his ex-wife's address instead of a condo he had with his fiancee because he didn't want to give up his $1,000-per-month Fishers Town Council salary after moving out of that district. He faced seven felony charges, including voter fraud, perjury and theft.


White, 42, has said the charges ignored a complicated personal life in which he was trying to raise his 10-year-old son, plan his second marriage and campaign for the statewide office he won that November.


He said he stayed at his ex-wife's house when he wasn't on the road campaigning and did not live in the condo until after he remarried.


No sentencing date was set.

Republican special prosecutor John Dowd said he's also unsure about the fate of White's position, but expressed satisfaction about the verdict.


"We believe it was about someone who violated the law and cheated the system — and gamed the system," Dowd said. "And, obviously, the jury thought the same way."


State law bars anyone convicted of a felony from remaining in office. It wasn't immediately clear how quickly White could be replaced or who might succeed him.


Democrat replacement?


A Marion County judge already has ruled that White should be replaced by Democrat Vop Osili, the man he defeated by about 300,000 votes in the November 2010 election, but that ruling is on hold pending an appeal.


But state law allows the governor — in the case, Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels — to appoint a successor.


White has resisted calls to resign from Democrats and Republicans, including Daniels.


Attorney Karen Celestino-Horseman, who watched the trial and spoke on behalf of Indiana Democrats following the verdict, said the party believes White's conviction further affirms that Osili should be secretary of state.


"(White) has been convicted, but the judge has left it open for misdemeanor sentencing. That's something that's going to have to be examined," she said.


During his closing arguments, assistant special prosecutor Dan Sigler Jr. argued that White knew that he was committing voter fraud but did it anyway for political power.


"If we aren't going to enforce election law against the secretary of state of Indiana, who are we going to enforce it against?" Sigler said.


Brizzi, White's attorney, rested Thursday without presenting a defense.


Brizzi told the jury during his closing arguments Friday that White's name was on the condo's bills and documents because he was paying for his fiancee and her children to live there, not because he was himself living at that address.


"Their case is based entirely on assumption, innuendo and leaps," Brizzi said.


White maintains he was staying at his ex-wife's house when he wasn't on the road campaigning and did not live in the condo until after his remarriage.

5 comments:

  1. What an idiot ... his fraud was committed when he voted in a Primary ... not a general election, so he was more likely voting for "show" ...

    That said, isn't it funny how serious the penalty is ... and how much this probably cost the taxpayers of Indiana to prosecute.

    Also, don't you think that if he was not a public figure, this would never have been noticed ... but as I recall when Senator Hollinger had his district moved, he rented a one-bedroom apartment away from his main home and called the apartment his "legal" residence for voting ... there were constant survelience and eventually a legal challenge ... and of course, we have Raymond Cravaack maintaining a home here, while his wife and kids live in NH. Heck, when we moved to Minnesota, we had a weekend to buy a house ... we bought in a new development where their were not any paved roads yet ... one of our neighbors was Congressman Vin Weber ... he had bought the house because of re-districting ... I never saw him once there.

    ReplyDelete
  2. QUERY : Could the Voter ID requirement actually have been the root cause of the problem ?

    Consider this situation : Mr. White (and his wife) own a home and possess a driver’s license with that address. The Whites decide they want a divorce … Mrs. White stays in the home … Mr. White moves across town to a “friend’s home” … his bills are sent there and he sleeps and eats there … however Mr. White never changes his driver’s license -- reasoning “it’s a hassle and this could be temporary as the permanent residence will be finalized before the driver’s license has to be renewed next year ”.
    Under Indiana law, Mr. White must show a driver’s license to be able to vote. Mr. White really wants to vote in the statewide elections and really is not concerned about the local city council elections
    … does he pay the state fee, update his driver’s license to reflect the temporary address, update his voting information and then go to the new place, show his ID and vote ?
    … or does he, just go to the same old place that he has voted in for the last umpteen years, show his ID and he only votes in statewide elections, does that mean that he did not impact the outcome of the election but did commit technical voter fraud ?

    For some people, they may just feel that they are not doing anything wrong … while some people may just feel they are above the law (are you familiar with Mitt Romney’s arrest ? ) and are “entitled” … heck, may be even feeling that it is your “responsibility” to vote.

    My gut tells me that there is voter fraud … but in extremely rare occasions does it change the outcome of the election. The scenario outlined above would be one example, but my gut tells me that a bigger problem is from people who have “vacation” homes … you know, live in Florida or Arizona in the winter and then have a Minnesota home for the summer … they pay taxes in both states and own property in both states and with absentee balloting, it would not be that hard … especially if you feel that you are “entitled” to vote, so you do the “responsible” thing and vote. There have been a few people caught doing this, but communications between the states is difficult.

    Oh, and in case you don’t know about Mitt Romney’s arrest story … Romney’s arrest came in June 1981 when he proceeded to launch his motorboat at Wayland’s Lake Cochituate, just west of Boston. A park police officer had told him not to launch his boat into the lake because the license number was too difficult to read. Romney, then asked what the fine was and he was informed it was a $50 fine. Romney then began to lower his boat into the water and the ranger pulled out a pair of handcuffs and took Romney (who was dripping wet in his bathing suit) into custody for disorderly conduct.
    The charges against Romney were dropped several days later and officially dismissed in February 1982 at Natick District Court. At Romney’s request, the judge also agreed to seal the records, making them unavailable for public inspection.
    Romney said that the park ranger had overstepped his authority in arresting him and said the reason the case was dropped was that he had threatened to charge the officer and his agency, then called the Department of Environmental Affairs, with false arrest.
    “He did not have the right to arrest me because I was not a disorderly person. This was an obvious case of false arrest,” Romney said.
    This story tells a lot about the man … a man that is above the law… a man with the connections to obtain favorable treatment … a man that will threaten to exert extensive legal actions to get his way …and yet his image is so important that the “official record” must be sealed.

    Hmmm … does the Charlie White story sound like someone that is “above the law” … pushing his connections … and now wants the judge to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor (and if reduced, will he ask it to be sealed) …

    Hmmm … does a Mitt Romney/Charlie White ticket excite you … I bet it excites a lot of Republicans.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think this forms an important context to the efforts by the right to institute repressive disenfranchising voter ID laws.

    We don't have a problem with people voting as someone else.

    We have a minor, very minor problem with a few felons voting prematurely to the final restoration of their voting rights after they've served their sentences. Big deal - that's a good thing they're voting.

    Where we have the problems is the right trying to rig elections, either as candidates in districts in which they don't actually reside (and I think you're right about the fake for-election-only addresses), or in some of their other ploys. Certainly the big money to promote disinformation propaganda campaigns is on their side far more than on the left or on the side of any indy candidates.

    I rankle more at the raw hypocrisy of it than anything else.

    While I do understand that no defense attorney is REQUIRED to present a defense, only closing arguments, that it is up to the prosecutor to prove that someone is guilty, I still find it interesting that no defense was presented.

    IF your argument is that your client really lived at the address given, then you would expect that to be proven.

    Going on memory, and I should go back and look this up to check, but my recollection was that the guy's ex-wife and new wife did not corroborate his story. And that other records like his cell phone records, showed that he did in fact spend far more time living at the address the prosecutor claimed.

    This appears to have been a well-documented case, one that proved the position of the prosecutor. It's not like this is all that rare as you pointed out.

    The defense lawyer may be correct that this was a case where the evidence was circumstantial; where someone is living can be a hard thing to prove when they do not reside somewhere 7 days a week.

    But I think it is worth noting that at no time despite having the opportunity to present a case showing it, did the defense attorney say the prosecutor was wrong, or that the evidence the prosecutor presented was a lie. If you look at it closely, it is a non-denial denial, it is a bit too carefully worded. The defense attorney does not state that White is innocent of the charges.

    Nor do I hear any talk about an appeal here, at least so far, which suggests to me that everything was done properly procedurally, and that the prosecutor pretty much has the candidate dead to rights.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I would see your point except for a couple of things.

    This was the address he was also using to take money for a job which required he live in the district.

    He didn't move to a friend's home that was a temporary address, or a vacation home. He had the home in his name, received bills and other mail there, and lived there with his girl friend who later became his fiance. It was his new permanent address, not a temporary address, so there was no reason other than taking a salary and voting in that other district for him not to chane his address.

    Further, when you're running for the office of Secretary of State, you shold be much more meticulous about observing rules that you are supposed to be enforcing on others who vote.

    So, while your query does point out that people are voting where they believe they should vote or can vote, perhaps not meticulously adhering to the law, but also not voting more than once or committing what we think of as voter fraud - some improper form of voting or multiple voting that is intended to alter the outcome of an election, this case was much more than just ordinary misunderstanding about voting in an election.

    This was a candidate who used a false address. This was a candidate who was running for the office of Secretary of State. And this was somoene who was taking a salary in an area that apparently required living there as a criteria for the job.

    If you are the mayor, you're supposed to live in the jurisdiction where you're the mayor, in most municipalities. This wasn't the job of mayor, but it was a similar municipal office.

    THAT puts this in a whole 'nother category of conduct.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Your first paragraph, and thus the premise of your post, is exceptionally well stated.

    This is ENTIRELY, nothing more, nothing less, than the creation of a false problem in order to facilitate the application of a "solution", such solution never intended as a meaningful change for the supposed problem, but one entirely intended to strip people eligible to vote of their right to do so. It is a big government, instrusive solution in search of a problem - or rather, it is a solution to the problem of people voting for anyone other than Republicans.

    This is the fundamental hypocrisy which permeates the Republican party. What they SAY they want is almost always entirely different, and very nearly the exact opposite, of what they ENACT and TRULY want. In this case they SAY they want to protect voting, and they SAY they want small government, when in truth they don't give a damn about smaller government except when it means they have to pay for it OR if it is somehow in their way, and they sure as hell don't care about voting integrity - for they are clearly seeking stripping people of basic rights. They undermine the integrity of elections by preventing those who disagree with them from voting to the extent they can prevent them - there is no integrity in elections which have suppressed voter turn-out.

    ReplyDelete