The Volokh Conspiracy

A Stolen Election in New York?

Jonathan H. Adler • October 21, 2009 8:17 am

Election officials in Troy, New York have identified over three-dozen phony or fraudulent absentee ballots from the September 15 primary election, which may have been enough to swing the result. While I support voter ID requirements, this is further evidence that absentee ballots are a far more serious vulnerability in our election systems.

Categories: Uncategorized

146 Comments

egd says:

Even more proof that there is no depth to which Republicans will sink in order to steal elections and abuse the rights of people to elect their own government.

When will this criminal organization finally be shut down?

Quote
October 21, 2009, 8:37 am
BN says:

While I support voter ID requirements...

The real question is, what kind of voter ID requirements do you support? I support voter ID requirements too, just not photo ID only requirements. Voters should be allowed to show a utility bill, bank statement or gov’t check in order to prove their identity. Photo ID only is overkill and IMO is designed to limit the number of people who vote.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 8:50 am
Monty says:

My understanding is that NY already has voter ID rules. You are required to show proof of identity at some point during the voter registration process. However, once you show ID once, you are never required to show it again. The problem is that no absentee ballot voter ID rule could correct this paticular abuse short of requiring the voter to present ID either when picking up, or delivering the ballot. That would be very impracticle given the whole purpose of absentee ballots; what if you can’t get to the board of elections personally due to travel or illness? These were real people who essentially had people steal thier votes, not false registrations or people not elligable to vote.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 9:13 am
Joe says:

This suggests the state court that overturned the voter id law that the US Supreme Court upheld (at least based on the nature of that challenge) had the right idea: absentee voting is for some reason selectively ignored by many voting id laws.

I’m also somewhat wary of absentee voting. I realize it has benefits and a long history, but the push to expand it troubles me. I think in person voting should be encouraged. If possible, some qualified person can visit people unable to get to the polls (disabled or whatnot), which might even encourage voting in the process. This can be done before the election, if necessary.

To the degree we need id laws, I’m also with BN. Not that the signature requirement in NYC has to my memory led to fraud problems. The local tabloids would likely report it if it did.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 9:18 am
Daniel Chapman says:

“Thirty-eight forged or fraudulent ballots have been thrown out, according to records at the Rensselaer County Board of Elections in Troy, N.Y. Enough votes, an election official admits, to likely have tipped the November election to the Democrats.”

You got it backwards again, egd. Click the link, THEN comment on it.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 9:21 am
kdackson says:

As a NYS resident (western NY), there is NO requirement to show ID at the polling place. You sign a book next to a facsimile of the signature you used when you registered. When I moved back to NYS in 2000, I was able to register when I got a new Driver’s License. The proof for the NYS DL was my NJ DL that I was turning in. No other proof of citizenship was required. Which is why I don’t like the “Motor Voter” laws and the pust to get illegal aliens DL.

Every year, the county board of elections send out postcards to your home address with your polling place. If the card is returned as undeliverable, you are taken off the rolls. However, this system is bogus — my sister (who used to live with me and my wife) has been living/working in the UK for the past 4 years and has not used our mailing address in that time. We still get the notification, even though the Post Office has been made aware she no longer lives there.

I see no valid reason why photo ID is not required to prove that you are eligible to vote. It is a right of citizenship — only citizens are eligible to vote. So simply prove that you are a citizen and eligible to vote.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 9:43 am
egd says:

Daniel Chapman: You got it backwards again, egd. Click the link, THEN comment on it.

Holy crap, you mean this alleged voter fraud, which may not be fraud at all, now that I really look at it, was done by people who are allegedly Democrats.

Obviously the story doesn’t consider the very real possibility that these were Republican wolves in Democrat clothing.

Even if it’s shown that DNC representatives were at work here, there is no reason to suggest that this is indicting of the DNC as a whole. Rather, it’s proof that rogue agents can cause good works to appear bad, and proof that we need more government regulation in this field.

But not voter ID requirements, because then a poll worker might realize a voter is black and deny them the right to vote.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 9:53 am
Constant says:

Well I understood you egd, but not because I read the article. General knowledge was my guide.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 9:58 am
BN says:

I see no valid reason why photo ID is not required to prove that you are eligible to vote. It is a right of citizenship – only citizens are eligible to vote. So simply prove that you are a citizen and eligible to vote.

In person voter fraud isn’t actually a real problem. As a result, we don’t need to spend a lot of time, money and effort attempting to fix it.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 10:00 am
anomdebus says:

egd,
It takes a considerable amount of charity to imagine an honest position for you to take that would produce both of your comments.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 10:11 am
egd says:

anomdebus: It takes a considerable amount of charity to imagine an honest position for you to take that would produce both of your comments.

Does satire count? Obviously Constant has blown my cover.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 10:13 am
Disintelligentsia says:

I think you forgot to put up your sarcasm tags — it was Democrats who committed vote fraud.

egd: Even more proof that there is no depth to which Republicans will sink in order to steal elections and abuse the rights of people to elect their own government.When will this criminal organization finally be shut down?

Quote
October 21, 2009, 10:19 am
kdackson says:

BN: In person voter fraud isn’t actually a real problem. As a result, we don’t need to spend a lot of time, money and effort attempting to fix it.

What time, money and effort are you talking about? You need an ID to open a bank account, board a domestic flight, cash a check, etc. I do not see that showing a government ID to prove you are who you say you are to exercise a right accorded to citizens only is a barrier.

Effort? A poll worker looks at the ID and then you. You either look like the picture or you don’t. Whole hell of a lot of effort there.

You need a better argument than that.

How about showing a valid ID when you apply for an absentee ballot? Or is that too much to ask?

Quote
October 21, 2009, 10:31 am
PatHMV says:

BN, utility bills and the like are trivially simple to forge, even by people with very limited technical skills. Takes a very basic computer, some photoshop-equivalent, a scanned copy of a real utility bill, and a color printer (for some bills, even a black-and-white printer will be fine). They mean absolutely nothing, and are no proof of identity at all. Moreover, many people share a residence, with only one person’s name on the utility bill. How do those others prove their identity under your scheme? Any old letter?

Meanwhile, got any statistics to support your claim about government-issued ID requirements? Got any solid evidence that there are significant number of eligible voters who have no government-issued ID at all?

Quote
October 21, 2009, 10:33 am
anomdebus says:

With that in mind, I thought I must be in a very literal mood, and that is probably somewhat true. However, I must say you played it masterfully, faking with one hand and a cross from the other.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 10:34 am
wfjag says:

An ACORN-Democratic Party affiliated organization committed votoer fraud? Obviously a Republican Party plot/ruse by Bush-Chaney-Rove & Co., since it was reported by Fox News. Good thing that legitimate news organizations like CNN won’t report it.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 10:39 am
Steve says:

The apparent voter fraud here is worse than the Republicans’ antics in running sham candidates for the Working Families nomination in hopes of fooling people who vote that line in the general election, but the latter isn’t anything to be proud of either.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 10:52 am
BN says:

What time, money and effort are you talking about?

If it costs $10 bucks to implement a photo ID only law it isn’t worth it because in person voter fraud isn’t a problem.

It does cost more than $10 bucks however. Look at the trouble Indiana had implementing its law. The case went all the way to SCOTUS. There was a lot of confusion about the law and it prevented legitimate voters from voting. LINK

BN, utility bills and the like are trivially simple to forge, even by people with very limited technical skills.

That may be true, but it is also irrelevant. Tell me how you would fraudulently vote 15 times with phony utility bills? Would you recruit 14 other people or do it yourself? Would you register 15 fake voters or would you pretend to be a real person? If you can’t see where I am going with this I will spell it out. It is a logistical impossibility to affect an election by forging utility bills.

Could you get one or two fraudulent votes cast by using forged utility bills? Probably, but the reward isn’t worth the risk. Which is why there isn’t any in person voter fraud now. It is too difficult to pull off already.

Got any solid evidence that there are significant number of eligible voters who have no government-issued ID at all?

Yes, here you go. LINK

Quote
October 21, 2009, 10:57 am
John Burgess says:

The last times I voted absentee, the return envelope required the witnessing signatures of two, non-related people, that I was who I said I was. Falsification was punishable by Florida law, as the form clearly stated.

This is not a guarantee against fraud, but it can help reduce it.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 11:17 am
yankee says:

Wow, some people’s sarcasm detectors need work.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 11:19 am
JRL says:

kdackson: What time, money and effort are you talking about? You need an ID to open a bank account, board a domestic flight, cash a check, etc. I do not see that showing a government ID to prove you are who you say you are to exercise a right accorded to citizens only is a barrier.Effort? A poll worker looks at the ID and then you. You either look like the picture or you don’t. Whole hell of a lot of effort there.You need a better argument than that.How about showing a valid ID when you apply for an absentee ballot? Or is that too much to ask?

It would be even easier than that. Just swipe your ID through the voting machine!

Quote
October 21, 2009, 11:21 am
Mark Field says:

absentee ballots are a far more serious vulnerability in our election systems.

I guess voter fraud in Oregon must be rampant then.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 11:29 am
Jim Miller says:

Thanks for making that point about absentee ballots. For some years I have been collecting news stories on vote fraud. (I just search using “vote + fraud” or something similar.) In at least four out of five cases, absentee ballots were used to commit vote fraud. In a few areas, there are vote brokers who regularly buy absentee ballots. (In some parts of the Appalachians, vote buyers are willing to trust voters to stay bought, but most buyers want the ballot.)

Recently, Britain expanded their use of absentee ballots. (Which they call “postal ballots”.) There was an explosion of vote fraud. It has become so bad that Birmingham is asking for it to be repealed, at least for them.

Along with the explosion of vote fraud in Britain came many reports of intimidation, mostly of Muslim women. It is hard, of course, to judge just how large that problem is, but there were enough reports to disturb some Labour MPs, especially women MPs.

Mark Field wonders about voter fraud in Oregon. There have been a number of cases of voter fraud in Oregon, including the stealing of absentee ballots. (Incidentally, it is very difficult to estimate the level of voter fraud since so much of it goes on undetected.)

But intimidation may be a bigger problem. Melody Rose, a professor at Portland State (and a feminist) ran an informal poll of Oregon voters and found that — as I recall — about 5 percent of the voters admitted to being pressured on their vote choices.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 11:52 am
zuch says:

FauxSnooze, eh?

First off, I’d note that the ballots were tossed. Why this is some failure of the system is beyond me.

As to who (if anyone) did this, I guess someone knows a whole lot:

Lambersten’s lawyer, David Gruenberg, calls what happened “the worst case of election fraud that I have seen in 32 years of practice” in Troy. “It goes far beyond what I have seen before because it involves fraudulently casting votes for individuals.” He says the fraud was carried out by “individuals associated and working with the Democratic candidates ... they are working to get the WFP lines for their candidates in the general election.”

Guess he ought to tell all he knows to the grand jury, eh?

And someone ought to turn a private eye (or state investigators) on Mirch also.

Cheers,

Quote
October 21, 2009, 11:54 am
David Nieporent says:

In person voter fraud isn’t actually a real problem.

How do you know? (Please don’t give me the “Nobody has shown examples of it.” Obviously, not; without voter ID rules, they can’t. This line of reasoning is like a bartender never checking ID and then saying, “There are no underage drinkers in here.”)

The real question is, what kind of voter ID requirements do you support? I support voter ID requirements too, just not photo ID only requirements. Voters should be allowed to show a utility bill, bank statement or gov’t check in order to prove their identity.

Utility bills prove one’s use of electricity, not one’s ID. At most, these show access to a mailbox, not ID.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 11:56 am
zuch says:

Monty:

These were real people who essentially had people steal thier votes, not false registrations or people not elligable to vote.

I think that an examination of the addresses to which the absentee ballots were sent might help to clarify things a bit.

Cheers,

Quote
October 21, 2009, 11:57 am
kdackson says:

BN: If it costs $10 bucks to implement a photo ID only law it isn’t worth it because in person voter fraud isn’t a problem. It does cost more than $10 bucks however. Look at the trouble Indiana had implementing its law. The case went all the way to SCOTUS. There was a lot of confusion about the law and it prevented legitimate voters from voting.

There is a difference between the cost of implementing and administering a law and defending that law against litigation. You can’t control the latter. Christ, even YOU should know the difference.

Ask yourself honestly why someone would argue AGAINST a voter ID system. The only legitimate reason for someone to be against it is because that someone want to be able to “game” the system.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 12:04 pm
Oren says:

You need an ID to open a bank account, board a domestic flight, cash a check, etc.

Spoken like a true middle (or greater) class American that cannot imagine that some fraction of poor folk have no bank account, don’t fly and cash their checks at the corner store that requires no id.

How about showing a valid ID when you apply for an absentee ballot? Or is that too much to ask?

What makes you think absentees are given out in person instead of mailed?

Quote
October 21, 2009, 12:06 pm
Vader says:

I would be comfortable with absentee ballots being done away with entirely.

Voting is the ritual at the heart of our civic religion. It should be treated with due sanctity. Including arranging your schedule to be at the voting booth on Election Day, just as non-secular religions have sacred days you are required to work around.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 12:07 pm
zuch says:

Daniel Chapman:

[egd]: “Thirty-eight forged or fraudulent ballots have been thrown out, according to records at the Rensselaer County Board of Elections in Troy, N.Y. Enough votes, an election official admits, to likely have tipped the November election to the Democrats.”

You got it backwards again, egd. Click the link, THEN comment on it.

Actually, you have no idea what those ballots (if they were illegal or fraudulent) would or would not have done if they’d been allowed to be counted. To pretend that you do is to be dishonest.

Cheers,

Quote
October 21, 2009, 12:11 pm
zuch says:

Prof. Adler:

“A Stolen Election in New York?”

Ummm, no. The ballots were tossed. Let’s be accurate, not histrionic (even if that’s what FauxSnooze teaches you).

Cheers,

Quote
October 21, 2009, 12:13 pm
kdackson says:

Oren:

In NYS, you can apply by phone for a questionaire that asks why you will not be able to vote in person, and upon approval, they will mail you a ballot. That’s how I got my ballot when I was living in China; I applied well before I left, and was able to vote a few weeks before the election.

Never showed an ID. Do you see a problem with that? Could this be how the stuff happened in Rensselaer County?

Now on to your accusing me of being a “classist” wrt lack of an ID. Even the poor need to show ID to buy beer, liquor, and cigarettes. How is it that we never hear of these issues for the drudgery of everyday life?

ID requirements are especially true in NYS (that’s why there was such a backlash against the issuance of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” DL for illegals). Ever hear of “Sherriff’s ID”? Any anyone who would accept a check without valid ID could probably be charged with fencing stolen property.

But I guess the poor (and their accomplices in these matters) are immune to all sorts of laws.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 12:20 pm
zuch says:

Jim Miller:

Incidentally, it is very difficult to estimate the level of voter fraud since so much of it goes on undetected.

Think about this statement. Then think about it again. Then laugh Mr. Miller out of the building for his oblivious unintentional irony.

Cheers,

Quote
October 21, 2009, 12:21 pm
BN says:

How do you know? (Please don’t give me the “Nobody has shown examples of it.” Obviously, not; without voter ID rules, they can’t. This line of reasoning is like a bartender never checking ID and then saying, “There are no underage drinkers in here.”)

Nobody has shown examples of it. Many states, like Georgia, already have or had non-photo id requirements and yet there haven’t been any cases of in person voter fraud in those states.

Utility bills prove one’s use of electricity, not one’s ID. At most, these show access to a mailbox, not ID.

OK you don’t like utility bills. How about a bank statement or a gov’t check? How about showing two forms of non-photo ID? Are you totally against any kind of compromise? If so, why?

kdackson: Ask yourself honestly why someone would argue AGAINST a voter ID system. The only legitimate reason for someone to be against it is because that someone want to be able to “game” the system.

I already provided a link to a story about legitimate voters not being allowed to vote because they don’t have a photo ID. I will never be able to understand why that doesn’t bother some people.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 12:26 pm
David Nieporent says:

Ummm, no. The ballots were tossed. Let’s be accurate, not histrionic (even if that’s what FauxSnooze teaches you).

This isn’t Balkin, Arne. Try less snark, more substance.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 12:27 pm
zuch says:

More Jim Miller cluelessness:

Melody Rose, a professor at Portland State (and a feminist) ran an informal poll of Oregon voters and found that — as I recall — about 5 percent of the voters admitted to being pressured on their vote choices.

Yes. We need to rein in all that 24X7 political advertising. Can’t allow that kind of pressure....

Cheers,

Quote
October 21, 2009, 12:28 pm
David Nieporent says:

OK you don’t like utility bills. How about a bank statement or a gov’t check? How about showing two forms of non-photo ID? Are you totally against any kind of compromise? If so, why?

I’m in favor of many compromises. State ID ought to be free. Expired licenses ought to be just as valid for ID purposes as valid ones are; just because the license to drive has expired doesn’t mean that one’s identity has. But I don’t think that things that don’t actually identify someone — in other words, things without pictures — should be acceptable as ID.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 12:31 pm
zuch says:

David Nieporent:

[zuch]: Ummm, no. The ballots were tossed. Let’s be accurate, not histrionic (even if that’s what FauxSnooze teaches you).

This isn’t Balkin, Arne. Try less snark, more substance.

I’m trying to be accurate, not snarky. Sorry if there was any confusion.

As to substance, do you disagree with the gravamen of my complaint to Prof. Adler?

Cheers,

Quote
October 21, 2009, 12:34 pm
fwb says:

Yeah, backward states such as NM, require or have in the past required that all absentee ballots/ballot envelope have a notary public embossment and signature. The person has to prove identity to the notary. Now it’s still the law in northern NM that one gets to vote for up to 5 yrs after death.

But gosh golly, it just to damn scary to have to prove one’s identity.

The truth is those in power want votes in order to keep power. They are willing to do ANYTHING to get those votes including buying votes through any means possible. Sometimes a bottle of thunderbird is all it takes.

The best resolution in a case like this is the death penalty for those involved.

Tiocfaidh ar la!

Quote
October 21, 2009, 12:37 pm
BN says:

David Nieporent: But I don’t think that things that don’t actually identify someone — in other words, things without pictures — should be acceptable as ID.

I understand that concern but it doesn’t bother me too much. Mostly because I think it is more important to allow legitimate voters to vote than it is to prevent a crime that isn’t happening. The harsh penalties for voting fraud and the logistical difficulties involved in overturning an election via in person voter fraud already prevent the that type of fraud from happening. IMO, the benefit is far outweighed by the cost.

I like your other compromises. Especially the expired license one. That seems one of the main problems older people have.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 12:40 pm
Laura(southernxyl) says:

Back when Tennessee State Sen. John Ford had to step down due to corruption charges, his sister Ophelia ran in a special election to fill that spot. She won with a 13-vote margin over the Republican challenger. The Republicans asked repeatedly for a recount, but the Shelby County Election Commission insisted that there were no irregularities and no recount was necessary. Finally they were able to force an audit of just one precinct, with the result that the election was thrown out. And the problems found were so bad that that precinct was merged with another one. The poll workers were blocked from ever working another election; some of them had worked that precinct for years. Here is an article that lists just some of the problems — dead people voting, people whose addresses were empty lots — found there.

The thing is, no one knows how much fraud there is if no one looks for it. As long as the right person wins the election, no one is going to look for it. And this stuff disenfranchises everyone.

They run get-out-the-vote vans in Memphis to get people to the polls. I wish they’d run get-some-ID vans into those same neighborhoods before election day. Surely it wouldn’t be that hard to prepare people, through PSAs on the radio or whatever, to have some kind of proof of identity ready and get that done. But once again, as long as fraud helps the people in power, then there is officially not a problem.

We moved to Florida 2 years ago and I immediately got a FL driver license and registered to vote here. I was supposed to be taken off the role in Shelby County but I went online the other day and confirmed that I am still on there. So are my husband and probably my daughter. It would be child’s play for anyone who knew that I was gone to vote in my name. Multiply that by the number of people who have left the state in the last few years. It’s a joke.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 12:44 pm
DjDiverDan says:

BN: In person voter fraud isn’t actually a real problem. As a result, we don’t need to spend a lot of time, money and effort attempting to fix it.
Quote

And by that, BN means “In-person voter fraud is almost impossible to catch or prosecute without a voter ID law, so please don’t impose Voter ID regulations so we Democrats can still have one relatively risk-free means of stealing elections.”

Quote
October 21, 2009, 12:45 pm
David Nieporent says:

As to substance, do you disagree with the gravamen of my complaint to Prof. Adler?

I think it’s pretty missing the point to complain that because the thieves were caught, there was no theft to talk about.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 12:53 pm
Oren says:

Now on to your accusing me of being a “classist” wrt lack of an ID. Even the poor need to show ID to buy beer, liquor, and cigarettes. How is it that we never hear of these issues for the drudgery of everyday life?

I wasn’t accusing you of being a classist, I’m just saying that we ought not to assume that everyone leads lives roughly identical to ours. Plenty of places don’t card for beer and cigs, any 17 year old can point you towards the nearest such establishment.

I already provided a link to a story about legitimate voters not being allowed to vote because they don’t have a photo ID. I will never be able to understand why that doesn’t bother some people.

Because there is an implicit judgment that folks that don’t have their lives in order ought not to vote. It’s not a position that is entirely without reason — those people can, on average, be expected to produce lower quality votes.

Alas, it is not the system of government that we have.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 12:53 pm
yao says:

It seems to me that Adler is being less than honest in his presentation of the material here. His title “A Stolen Election?” (note the past tense) and remark “may have been enough to swing the result” appear to be based on this entirely opaque paragraph from the Fox News report:

“Thirty-eight forged or fraudulent ballots have been thrown out — enough votes, an election official admits, to likely have tipped the city council and county elections in November to the Democrats. Candidates would have been able to run both on the Democratic and Working Families Party lines in two weeks, and that could have given the Democrats the general election.”

In November? November? Why that’s in the future, not the past. The bizarre sequence of tenses here “would have been able”, “could have given”... no explanation is offered demonstrating how tossed ballots could affect a future election.

So why does Adler use the past tense on this? Very dodgy stuff. Not good for his credibility.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 12:54 pm
BN says:

DjDiverDan: And by that, BN means “In-person voter fraud is almost impossible to catch or prosecute without a voter ID law, so please don’t impose Voter ID regulations so we Democrats can still have one relatively risk-free means of stealing elections.”

To recap:

I have provided a link that show there are hundreds of thousands of people in the state of Georgia alone who don’t have a photo ID and a link that shows legitimate voters couldn’t vote because they lacked a photo ID and your response is:

In person voter fraud is a wicked huge problem despite the fact that there isn’t any evidence it is a wicked huge problem. Thanks for that insight my friend.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 12:55 pm
Rich says:

Vader says that he is okay with eliminating absentee ballots and to a certain extent I agree. The only exception I would allow is military and potentially people on business people out of their locale and they both would need somesort of validation.

There is enough voting fraud(my opinion, see minnesota) in person that to make it easy with absentee ballots is ridiculous.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 12:59 pm
kdackson says:

OK you don’t like utility bills. How about a bank statement or a gov’t check? How about showing two forms of non-photo ID? Are you totally against any kind of compromise? If so, why?

kdackson: Ask yourself honestly why someone would argue AGAINST a voter ID system. The only legitimate reason for someone to be against it is because that someone want to be able to “game” the system.

I already provided a link to a story about legitimate voters not being allowed to vote because they don’t have a photo ID. I will never be able to understand why that doesn’t bother some people.

There you go missing the point (as usual). If someone is too damn lazy to do what is required by law to get a photo ID for voting, then voting must not be very high on that person’s list of priorities. If we enforced the “carding” when buying liquor and tobacco to this level, these people would damn well sure get an ID.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 1:00 pm
RPT says:

From the article:

“Critics also accuse the Working Families Party of having a long association with the troubled activist group, ACORN. Bertha Lewis, ACORN’s CEO, is one of the party’s co-founders. The New York Times reported this month that “Patrick Gaspard, the White House political director, worked with ACORN in New York to set up the Working Families political party and sat on the party’s board with Ms. Lewis.” ”

We’ve got birthers, tenthers, tea bag persons, noun-verb-9/11’ers, and now “Acorners”. No need to find that anyone from the organization was actually involved in anything.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 1:00 pm
NickM says:

In the mid-1990s, a city councilman in one of the Minneapolis suburbs was caught trying to vote twice — once in the city he was a councilman of and once in another city. His problem was that he was recognized at the polls in the other city by another voter who knew who he was and where he sat on the council. Had he not been a celebrity, he would have gotten away with it undetected.

The easiest elections to steal this way have low turnout and are in small jurisdictions — like municipal elections. It’s not too hard to put together long lists of elections where the difference between winning and losing was 10 votes or less.
tiny margins in California’s Central Valley

IMO at least one form of acceptable ID has to be free and widely available for photo ID laws to be acceptable, but when it is, that provides its own benefit for poor people.

As for why states have focused on photo ID but not absentee ballot reform, the NVRA (Motor-Voter) contains prohibitions on making absentee ballots more difficult to obtain than they were before the law passed. Anything else would have to happen on the federal level.

BTW, Oren, I had a client that employed primarily low-wage workers who used check-cashing services, and at least in the East L.A. area, all those services require photo ID of some sort. I can’t imagine any check-cashing service outside a small town where everyone knows each other taking the risk of not asking for ID.

Nick

Quote
October 21, 2009, 1:13 pm
kdackson says:

Oren: I wasn’t accusing you of being a classist, I’m just saying that we ought not to assume that everyone leads lives roughly identical to ours. Plenty of places don’t card for beer and cigs, any 17 year old can point you towards the nearest such establishment. Because there is an implicit judgment that folks that don’t have their lives in order ought not to vote. It’s not a position that is entirely without reason — those people can, on average, be expected to produce lower quality votes. Alas, it is not the system of government that we have.

Yes, and it’s ILLEGAL in NYS to sell to someone without a valid ID. And plenty of sting operations have been run to the detriment of the poor slobs working behind the counter.

But you seem to be just fine with holding people who want to vote to LOWER standards than required to purchase beer.

The battle is already lost.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 1:14 pm
CJColucci says:

How many people would support a system that provided free photo ID upon registration?

Quote
October 21, 2009, 1:14 pm
Oren says:

If someone is too damn lazy to do what is required by law to get a photo ID for voting, then voting must not be very high on that person’s list of priorities.

The right to vote is fundamental and not subject to being denigrated because people do not want to expend large amounts of unnecessary effort in exercising it.

Maybe we should apply this to other fundamental rights: “If you are too lazy to take a 40 hour class and apply in-person for a permit, then gun ownership is not high on your list”.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 1:14 pm
Oren says:

Yes, and it’s ILLEGAL in NYS to sell to someone without a valid ID. And plenty of sting operations have been run to the detriment of the poor slobs working behind the counter.

But you seem to be just fine with holding people who want to vote to LOWER standards than required to purchase beer.

Yup.

Did you know it’s also ILLEGAL in NYS to not come to a complete stop at every stop sign?! I drove around the suburbs once and saw a 100% violation rate!

Nobody has serious trouble buying beer without id and it’s pure fantasy to pretend otherwise.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 1:16 pm
David Nieporent says:

Arne: in any case, just to be clear, my objection was not to the nitpicky distinction you were drawing, but to the silly reference to “Fauxnews.”

Quote
October 21, 2009, 1:20 pm
Mark Field says:

Mark Field wonders about voter fraud in Oregon. There have been a number of cases of voter fraud in Oregon, including the stealing of absentee ballots. (Incidentally, it is very difficult to estimate the level of voter fraud since so much of it goes on undetected.)

Putting aside the absurdity of your last sentence, I don’t see how anything qualifies as “voter fraud” if it didn’t or couldn’t change the outcome of the election. If you have links to show elections where fraud did so, let’s see ‘em.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 1:21 pm
Laura(southernxyl) says:

I don’t see how anything qualifies as “voter fraud” if it didn’t or couldn’t change the outcome of the election.

You are kidding, right?

Oren, if people had ID, then it might be less feasible to buy beer without it. Whether they don’t have it b/c it’s out of their reach, or because they can’t be bothered and nobody makes them, is unknown. It’s pretty stupid, IMO, to say that we should not enforce laws because people are required to expend some effort to comply with them.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 1:25 pm
zuch says:

David Nieporent:

I think it’s pretty missing the point to complain that because the thieves were caught, there was no [“attempted”, fixed that for ya] theft to talk about.

Pay attention. My point (the “gravamen of my complaint”) was that Prof. Adler’s headline was misleading if not inaccurate ... and just a tad histrionic. Do you think this was a “stolen election”?

Cheers,

Quote
October 21, 2009, 1:28 pm
kdackson says:

CJColucci: How many people would support a system that provided free photo ID upon registration?

I would.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 1:29 pm
Jim Miller says:

zuch has now produced a whole series of snarky comments attacking those worry about this case of apparent vote fraud. (Two of them indirectly ask me to tutor him or her on some vote fraud basics.)

Before zuch posts another snarky comment, I would suggest that he or she clarify his position: Is zuch opposed to fraudulent votes, if those votes help leftist candidates? If he is not opposed to those fraudulent votes, then most of us will simply ignore the snark.

(And the tutoring? We might be able to work something out, but I would have to charge much higher rates to such an unpromising student.)

Quote
October 21, 2009, 1:31 pm
kdackson says:

Oren: The right to vote is fundamental and not subject to being denigrated because people do not want to expend large amounts of unnecessary effort in exercising it. Maybe we should apply this to other fundamental rights: “If you are too lazy to take a 40 hour class and apply in-person for a permit, then gun ownership is not high on your list”.

Ah, but we have higher hurdles for someone to exercise an enumerated right (gun ownership), than we have for a right that was initiallly reserved for property owners.

But you seem to be just fine with holding people who want to vote to LOWER standards than required to purchase beer.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 1:31 pm
kdackson says:

Oren: Yup. Did you know it’s also ILLEGAL in NYS to not come to a complete stop at every stop sign?! I drove around the suburbs once and saw a 100% violation rate!Nobody has serious trouble buying beer without id and it’s pure fantasy to pretend otherwise.

And I repeat:

But you seem to be just fine with holding people who want to vote to LOWER standards than required to purchase beer.

Or are you a fan of “selective enforcement”. I mean, when did we get the right to decide which laws to obey without consequence?

Quote
October 21, 2009, 1:33 pm
zuch says:

David Nieporent:

Arne: in any case, just to be clear, my objection was not to the nitpicky distinction you were drawing, but to the silly reference to “Fauxnews.”

Oh. IC.

Cheers,

Quote
October 21, 2009, 1:36 pm
gasman says:

When did absentee voting begin and is there really any requirement that a state use it? The obvious safeguard for absentee voting is to abolish it altogether.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 1:39 pm
zuch says:

Jim Miller:

Before zuch posts another snarky comment, I would suggest that he or she clarify his position: Is zuch opposed to fraudulent votes, if those votes help leftist candidates?

Did I ever say such a thing? But I’m curious as to how you know that these alleged fraudulent votes “help[ed] leftist candidates”? Did they let you see the ballots?

(And the tutoring? We might be able to work something out, but I would have to charge much higher rates to such an unpromising student.)

You won’t be able to charge much when you spew this kind of nonsense. If I were you, Jim, I’d avoid bringing your competency into play here.

Cheers,

Quote
October 21, 2009, 1:42 pm
Joe says:

you seem to be just fine with holding people who want to vote to LOWER standards than required to purchase beer.

Since you can vote at 18 while 21 is the age to purchase beer, yeah, that’s true. Likewise, there is a ban on “poll taxes” for voting ... you can tax beer sales. Put aside, yes, many states don’t require picture ids for voting, while they do for buying beer.

Someone mentioned the ceremonial nature of in person voting. I’m sympathetic to that. It’s one remaining public act of citizenship, and not as rare as jury duty ... which many still get out of these days, or need not go in person unless they are needed.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 1:47 pm
zuch says:

kdackson:

Ah, but we have higher hurdles for someone to exercise an enumerated right (gun ownership), than we have for a right that was initiallly reserved for property owners.

Hmmmm. Did slaves initially (post-BoR) have a right to KABA? As to the right to vote, IIRC we’ve had three constitutional amendments (14th, 15th, and 19th) that specifically address this very right. Hard to say that it’s just not that important....

Cheers,

Quote
October 21, 2009, 1:50 pm
zuch says:

gasman:

When did absentee voting begin and is there really any requirement that a state use it? The obvious safeguard for absentee voting is to abolish it altogether.

If we eliminate voting altogether, we can be absolutely sure there will be no voting fraud. Problem solved.

Cheers,

Quote
October 21, 2009, 1:53 pm
kdackson says:

zuch: kdackson:Hmmmm. Did slaves initially (post-BoR) have a right to KABA? As to the right to vote, IIRC we’ve had three constitutional amendments (14th, 15th, and 19th) that specifically address this very right. Hard to say that it’s just not that important….Cheers,

Pray tell, what part of initially did you choose to ignore?

Quote
October 21, 2009, 1:56 pm
Dave N says:

CJColucci: How many people would support a system that provided free photo ID upon registration?

I would, as long as the registration process required proof of citizenship (which deters a different kind of illegal voting).

Quote
October 21, 2009, 1:58 pm
Joe says:

zuch in fact doesn’t list all the amendments directly applicable to voting

Quote
October 21, 2009, 2:04 pm
arbitraryaardvark says:

kdackson: Ask yourself honestly why someone would argue AGAINST a voter ID system. The only legitimate reason for someone to be against it is because that someone want to be able to “game” the system.

I encourage you to go read the Rutherford Institute amicus in Crawford, or the Privacy Project amicus in which I was a co-filer, or read the documents in my voter ID case. I’m currently waiting for the judge to rule on my latest request for an injunction for November’s election in Indiana.
I object to voter ID because it violates my right to vote under the state constitution. I object to having to show that I’ve paid a poll tax, specifically barred by the US constitution amendment 24. I object to the government rummaging though my pockets without a warrant. I object to the general trend of people wanting a photo id or ssn or retinal scan every time i turn around.
When I fly, I don’t show ID. When I cash a check at my local bank, I don’t usually show ID, because they know me. When I buy a drink at my club, they don’t ask for ID, they just hand me my gin and tonic without asking what I want because they know me.
When I go to vote, they know me, and they know I’m going to object to not being allowed to vote.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 2:06 pm
Oren says:

It’s pretty stupid, IMO, to say that we should not enforce laws because people are required to expend some effort to comply with them.

When those laws burden the exercise of a fundamental right, the calculus changes somewhat.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 2:14 pm
Dan Weber says:

Oren: The right to vote is fundamental and not subject to being denigrated because people do not want to expend large amounts of unnecessary effort in exercising it.

But we make people register to vote. Are people who are turned away because they didn’t register being denied a fundamental right?

Clearly, as important as we have decided voting is, there are still hurdles and effort that people must go through in order to do it. Although there are reasonable differences on what kind of accuracy we want to have in our voting system, I’m not sure why in between “have to register” and “have photo ID” is some huge step function.

I’m also open to other proposals.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 2:17 pm
Oren says:

Ah, but we have higher hurdles for someone to exercise an enumerated right (gun ownership), than we have for a right that was initiallly reserved for property owners.

The substance of our democracy has changed. The right to vote is just as fundamental as the RKBA, and I would not burden either more than is absolutely necessary.

But you seem to be just fine with holding people who want to vote to LOWER standards than required to purchase beer.

Again, the fantasy that buying beer requires ID? Were you never 17?

Or are you a fan of “selective enforcement”. I mean, when did we get the right to decide which laws to obey without consequence?

I’m a fan of the notion that the government ought not to pass law by which the populace can not or will not abide.

Forcing senior citizens to show ID in order to buy cigarettes seems like a very good example.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 2:21 pm
zuch says:

Joe says:

zuch in fact doesn’t list all the amendments directly applicable to voting

Joe, you are indeed correct. I missed a few more. Mea culpa.

Cheers,

Quote
October 21, 2009, 2:25 pm
loki13 says:

I’m going to try to add in my two cents a to why there’s an essential disconnect on this issue. What should be a rational, non-partisan issue is, instead, so tied up in partisan points that people lose sight of the main isues:

1. For the most part, there is very little in the way of voter fraud or stolen elections in the United States. That is a point ignored by those seeking to constatnly decry “voter fraud”.

2. OTOH, it does exist. People are imperfect, and politicians are... politicians. I don’t think that anyone would be against actual common-sense ways to reduce what voter fraud exists so long as–

3. It wasn’t being done for partisan gain. When you have people who tie it into the “lazy” people who don’t get ID, or states that make it difficult to get ID (Georgia), or commenters who ignore the very real problem of absentee ballots while decrying “Voter Fraud”, it is hard to see this as anything other than a partisan wedge issue which...

4. Is ultimately destructive the fabric of civil society while not solving any problems.

Is there fraud? Yes, just like any human system is imperfect. Just like there’s voter intimidation and other bad tactics. Would a voter ID requirement “solve” the problems? Probably not, since any real fraud would probably be acocmplished at the ballot box/computer (easier to do) or through absentee ballots (no ID!). But would people be more amenable to voter ID if it was part of a comprehensive schem that had provisional ballot (left ID at home, was stolen etc.) as well as *easily provided free photo ID* and solved the problem of absentee ballots (had to get it in person by showing photo ID?). Sure.

But until it’s looked at as an actual issue, instead of a partisan talking point, I doubt there will be a consensus for change.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 2:55 pm
B-Rob says:

kdackson: You need an ID to open a bank account, board a domestic flight, cash a check, etc. I do not see that showing a government ID to prove you are who you say you are to exercise a right accorded to citizens only is a barrier.

In fact, you do NOT need an ID to board an airplane. They don’t like to tell you this, but the FAA has a protocol for people who do not have IDs. The last time I opened a bank account (actually, a CD for my then eight year old) I did not need an ID, only her social security number. And since I have an account there now, I would not need an ID to cash a check.

The reality should be obvious as to WHY Southern states primarily (surprise surprise) have gone to lengths to require voter ID for in person voting, but none for absentee balloting. There is no logical reason to require IDs to vote in person (and there are basically NO cases of voter fraud at the booth) but not absentee balloting (where the fraud is much easier and more prevalent). For absentee balloting, you could require people to present a photo copy of their photo ID, which should be no problem, what with the prevalence of home copiers and Kinkos, the public library.

Gee . . . wonder why no one on the right wants to require photo IDs for absentee balloting?

Quote
October 21, 2009, 3:13 pm
kdackson says:

Oren: The substance of our democracy has changed. The right to vote is just as fundamental as the RKBA, and I would not burden either more than is absolutely necessary. Again, the fantasy that buying beer requires ID? Were you never 17?I’m a fan of the notion that the government ought not to pass law by which the populace can not or will not abide. Forcing senior citizens to show ID in order to buy cigarettes seems like a very good example.

1. The substance may have changed, but the right to bear arms has, until recently, been in dispute. But then again, why encumber it at all?

2. Show me the constitutional right to buy beer. I know there is a constitutional ammendment that repeals the constitutional ammendment forbiding you to buy beer, but that is not the same thing.

You still seem to be just fine with holding people who want to vote to LOWER standards than required to purchase beer.

Sorry, it’s not a fantasy, it’s the LAW (a fact, it seems, to be lost on LAWYERS).

3. So if I decide not to abide by the speed limit, I’m OK? Again selective obedience of the laws you like, and selective disobedience of the laws you don’t.

Tell the idiots to get off their damn asses and get a frigging ID. Problem solved. Or it would be if there were fewer people like you who seem to be OK with the notion of “Do whatever the hell you want, lest we inconvenience a few to maintain the integrity of the Republic”.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 3:18 pm
Mark Field says:

You are kidding, right?

No. If the fraud doesn’t affect the outcome, it’s unimportant.

To be clear, I’d still prosecute it in order to discourage it, but it isn’t very high on the list of problems to solve.

When did absentee voting begin and is there really any requirement that a state use it? The obvious safeguard for absentee voting is to abolish it altogether.

The first use I know of was for soldiers during the Civil War. I’d guess that until fairly recently the military was the principal beneficiary of the practice.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 3:29 pm
B-Rob says:

Its also interesting: we have been able to survive as a country for more than 200 years with no stringent ID requirements for voting; but NOW, in these past few years of tight elections, all of a sudden right wingers think we need photo ID requirements to vote in public. . . but we don’t need them for absentee balloting, which tend to skew R. And the best argument in favor of the ID requirement for in person voting is that you need ID EVERYWHERE EVERY DAY to buy beer and cigarettes. And given the stats that show that such a rule would tend to prohibit a lot of older and poorer citizens from exercising the franchise [people like my late father who fought in WWII but never had a photo ID]: cons have no rational response except “oh, well, suck s for you”.

So to recap: conservatives want a new rule that is overboard in addressing a problem that does not exist (in person voter fraud), ignores a serious problem that does exist (absentee balloting fraud), while simultanously reducing the roles of people who tend to vote Dem. Imagine that! This blatent vote suppression effort is up there on the mendacity scale with the Ohio GOP trying to get the state to REDUCE THE HOURS that the polls were open for early voting.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 3:34 pm
kdackson says:

R-Bob: If they want to deny you boarding, it’s a lot tougher if you have an ID. Without one, they have an easier time delaying or refusing you.

I opened a bank account last April. Needed to show GOVERNMENT ISSUED ID and SSN. End of story.

I am from a northern state (NY) and I believe that I should have to show an ID to vote in person and to get an absentee ballot.

But nice of you to insinuate that anyone would be a racist for requiring someone to show ID for voting.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 3:35 pm
kdackson says:

R-bob:

How convenient that 4% of the population is here illegally and you have no problem with your vote being diluted by someone who has no legal right to cast a vote.

Oh, right. They vote the correct way, so no harm, no foul....

Quote
October 21, 2009, 3:38 pm
Oren says:

Clearly, as important as we have decided voting is, there are still hurdles and effort that people must go through in order to do it. Although there are reasonable differences on what kind of accuracy we want to have in our voting system, I’m not sure why in between “have to register” and “have photo ID” is some huge step function.

It’s not huge, but remember the burden is cumulative.

I’m open to requiring photo id if the government will make an effort at providing everyone with an id.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 3:45 pm
Laura(southernxyl) says:

and there are basically NO cases of voter fraud at the booth

I just linked to one, upstream.

There are no cases if no one is checking.

MY right to vote is a fundamental right that is basically taken away from me if somebody else is diluting my vote out by casting votes for dead people.

Strange how voting is so fundamental that it’s crucial that it be done casually with no controls whatever.

The reality should be obvious as to WHY Southern states primarily (surprise surprise)

Surprise surprise, the vote fraud I linked to earlier occurred in Memphis, TN. The Shelby County Election Commission is run by black people and the polling places in Memphis are pretty much run by black people. What’s the problem? you ask. The problem is that Southeners are STILL to be slammed by the supposition that black people in the South are not being allowed to vote, and that any fraud allegations are only made up by racists who don’t want black folks to vote. It is truly ironic that a person who is crying crocodile tears about racism would identify and then slam a group of people that way.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 3:52 pm
ricky says:

Loki has it right. In this case, all of the people defending voter fraud look absolutely foolish, and the people wanting a solution look righteous. But if the parties were reversed, the opinions would likely reverse as well. In any case, I think we can all agree that voter stupidity is a much more rampant problem than voter fraud in this country.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 3:53 pm
ricky says:

By the way, all of this acerbic partisan ranting sickens me. Some of you leftists obviously need a lot more counseling to get over your BDS.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 3:57 pm
CJColucci says:

You still seem to be just fine with holding people who want to vote to LOWER standards than required to purchase beer.

That seems reasonable to me, given the relative likelihoods of legally unqualified people trying to get beer or vote. Then again, I haven’t been proofed in decades.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 3:58 pm
Laura(southernxyl) says:

In this case, all of the people defending voter fraud look absolutely foolish, and the people wanting a solution look righteous. But if the parties were reversed, the opinions would likely reverse as well.

Not mine.

In any case, I think we can all agree that voter stupidity is a much more rampant problem than voter fraud in this country.

You have a God-given, constitutional right to be stupid. You don’t have the right to vote fraudulently.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 4:17 pm
zuch says:

Ricky:

In this case, all of the people defending voter fraud look absolutely foolish, and the people wanting a solution look righteous.

I missed it. Can you point me in the right direction (links appreciated): Who here has been defending voter fraud?

Cheers,

Quote
October 21, 2009, 4:18 pm
ASlyJD says:

Oren, no offense, but I’m guessing that you were 17 quite a while ago. Even in the little podunk town where I attended high school less than ten years ago, the kind of place where you’d expect cashiers to look the other way for their kid brothers and schoolmates, there was very little alcohol or cigarettes sold to the under-aged. Stolen out of dad’s cabinet or flat out provided by mom was the modus operandi.

I think it’s partly to do with the intrusion of chain stores. Wal-mart has a lot more to lose in a lawsuit than the mom and pop, and so they enforce the laws more tightly.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 4:19 pm
ricky says:

Everyone here who is either pooh-poohing it, or saying there’s nothing we can do to fix it, is defending it zuch.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 4:25 pm
Oren says:

The substance may have changed, but the right to bear arms has, until recently, been in dispute. But then again, why encumber it at all?

No reason to.

2. Show me the constitutional right to buy beer. I know there is a constitutional ammendment that repeals the constitutional ammendment forbiding you to buy beer, but that is not the same thing.

There is none. A State may, consistent with the Constitution either forbid or allow 12 year olds to buy beer.

You still seem to be just fine with holding people who want to vote to LOWER standards than required to purchase beer.

No, I’m saying that the State has much more leeway to conduct policy wrt to beer. There is no law requiring the States to restrict beer to under 21s (SD v. Dole) nor is there a requirement that they check IDS. They can let everyone drink if they chose.

Sorry, it’s not a fantasy, it’s the LAW (a fact, it seems, to be lost on LAWYERS).

When you rejoin reality, you will find that a LAW against something doesn’t actually stop it.

In many cases, such as speeding, drinking beer when you are 17, buying fireworks in one state and setting them off in another where they are forbidden..., the law seems to respected more in breach than in conformity.

So if I decide not to abide by the speed limit, I’m OK? Again selective obedience of the laws you like, and selective disobedience of the laws you don’t.

Judging by the fact that everyone on the highway here goes 80, I’m going to venture to say that you will be OK.

Selective obedience is a nice way to put it, but I tend to think of it as selective enforcement. The police do not rigidly enforce speeding laws (even if, logistically, they could, which they can’t) because the political branches wouldn’t put up with it.

Finally (and most importantly), if enforcement of a provision is so logistically difficult that violation is commonplace and largely tolerated (recreational drugs anyone?), to me that’s a good sign that the legislature has overstepped its bounds and regulated an area outside their competence.

Tell the idiots to get off their damn asses and get a frigging ID.

Kind of hard when you need ID to get ID. Where does someone with absolutely no documentation go to get ID?

Or it would be if there were fewer people like you who seem to be OK with the notion of “Do whatever the hell you want, lest we inconvenience a few to maintain the integrity of the Republic”.

The integrity of the Republic is dependent on the consent of the governed.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 4:39 pm
Oren says:

Oren, no offense, but I’m guessing that you were 17 quite a while ago.

Born in 1984, and no offense taken.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 4:41 pm
Oren says:

MY right to vote is a fundamental right that is basically taken away from me if somebody else is diluting my vote out by casting votes for dead people.

But the dilution of your vote is a lesser injury that denying a legitimate voter the right to vote altogether.

I would phrase it this way: I do not support any policy whose expected outcome is to eliminate more legitimate votes than fraudulent ones. In other words, I conceive that the disutility of excluding a legitimate voter is equivalent to the disutility of including a fraudulent one.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 4:44 pm
Andrew J. Lazarus says:

There is an interesting connection between the TSA/no-fly thread and this one. It’s obvious that this is a case of absentee ballot fraud, it appears that there is quite a bit of (bipartisan) absentee ballot fraud out there, yet 90 percent of the thread is devoted to making in-person voters take off their shoes and throw away their toothpaste when they go to the polls. In other words, the Voter ID is part theatre, and part a clever attempt to disenfranchise the poor and elderly. (As it happens, I would have no problem with compulsory national ID, as long as it were easy to obtain.)

Quote
October 21, 2009, 4:44 pm
Laura(southernxyl) says:

But the dilution of your vote is a lesser injury that denying a legitimate voter the right to vote altogether.

I would phrase it this way: I do not support any policy whose expected outcome is to eliminate more legitimate votes than fraudulent ones. In other words, I conceive that the disutility of excluding a legitimate voter is equivalent to the disutility of including a fraudulent one.

I would assert that part of being a legitimate voter is to possess ID that would identify that voter at the polling place. And I deny that it’s too much to ask that the voter get some ID. If it’s important to people to vote, then they’ll do what the rest of us do, and get some. If it’s not important enough, that’s fine, there’s no requirement that they vote.

In other words, the Voter ID is part theatre, and part a clever attempt to disenfranchise the poor and elderly.

Andrew, you insult everyone here who wants to see the law enforced. If you are to tell me that I want the poor and elderly to be blocked from voting, then I can tell you that you want your side to win at all costs, and are convinced that you must defend and perpetuate fraud or it will lose. Is that your position?

Quote
October 21, 2009, 4:55 pm
Anthony says:

Broadly speaking, in-person voter fraud is going to be uncommon, whether or not we have voter ID laws, because it’s a rather inefficient way to steal votes — it takes a significant amount of effort per stolen vote and, since each person can only steal a small number of votes, also requires a large number of people to get involved, thus making the process almost impossible to keep secret. Voter fraud is almost always carried out at a level where one person can change a large number of ballots, and voter ID won’t make any difference at that level. Absentee voting is a much more convenient way to steal votes, though until recently absentee ballots tended to skew (R), and thus the people pushing Voter ID had no reason to concern themselves with problems.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 4:56 pm
Mark Field says:

MY right to vote is a fundamental right that is basically taken away from me if somebody else is diluting my vote out by casting votes for dead people

.

There’s no such thing as a “diluted” vote. The US system is winner-take-all. It doesn’t matter if every single vote in opposition was fraudulent, as long as the winning side was clean.

I conceive that the disutility of excluding a legitimate voter is equivalent to the disutility of including a fraudulent one.

It’s worse, actually. If a someone votes fraudulently, that affects the rights of no one unless it changed the outcome of the election. If someone is denied the right to vote, that deprives that person of a recognized constitutional right.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 5:01 pm
Oren says:

I would assert that part of being a legitimate voter is to possess ID that would identify that voter at the polling place.

I don’t know where you get this assertion, but at least around here, the homeless are entitled to vote just as much as us middle-class rubes.

And I deny that it’s too much to ask that the voter get some ID.

Again, kind of hard to get ID when you don’t have any ID. Kind of a circular problem.

If it’s important to people to vote, then they’ll do what the rest of us do, and get some.

Except that I got photo ID despite the fact that I don’t need it to vote — that is, for entirely independent reasons. For me, therefore, an id requirement is zero burden.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 5:05 pm
Oren says:

Andrew, you insult everyone here who wants to see the law enforced. If you are to tell me that I want the poor and elderly to be blocked from voting, then I can tell you that you want your side to win at all costs, and are convinced that you must defend and perpetuate fraud or it will lose. Is that your position?

Can’t speak for Andrew, but I don’t think that anyone wants the poor or elderly to be blocked from voting. I do think that some folks have weighed that effect much less gravely than they ought.

That is, the debate is on assigning weights to the various pathologies of every system and then deciding which is less pathological — one in which the homeless (say) are wrongly disenfranchised or one in which some fraction of votes are fraudulent (and obviously it’s a continuum of sorts).

Quote
October 21, 2009, 5:07 pm
ricky says:

I understand now why Oren is so childish. He is, in fact, still a child.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 5:08 pm
mattski says:

Andrew, you insult everyone here who wants to see the law enforced. If you are to tell me that I want the poor and elderly to be blocked from voting, then I can tell you that you want your side to win at all costs, and are convinced that you must defend and perpetuate fraud or it will lose. Is that your position?

That is a bizarre statement. Even more so than your previous statement that,

MY right to vote is a fundamental right that is basically taken away from me if somebody else is diluting my vote out by casting votes for dead people.

How do you know for whom a particular fraudulent vote is cast? If a fraudulent vote is cast for your candidate then your right to vote has been amplified by fraud.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 5:09 pm
zuch says:

Ricky:

Everyone here who is either pooh-poohing it, or saying there’s nothing we can do to fix it, is defending it zuch.

That’s simply not true (and shows a remarkable lack of imagination — or something — on your part). But FWIW, I did say there’s something we can do to fix the problem of fraudulent voting completely. I’m surprised you missed it. Read it, and then we can discuss.

Just a heads-up for you: There’s a saying in law that it’s better to let ten guilty men go free that it is to convict one innocent one. YMMV, though. It probably does.

Cheers,

Quote
October 21, 2009, 5:11 pm
NickM says:

Why are there no prominent elected Democrats calling for proof of identification with absentee ballot applications or absentee ballots?

The Heritage Foundation has already called for what B-Rob is suggesting — photo ID required with absentee ballots.

Nick

Quote
October 21, 2009, 5:15 pm
zuch says:

Mark Field:

If a someone votes fraudulently, that affects the rights of no one unless it changed the outcome of the election. If someone is denied the right to vote, that deprives that person of a recognized constitutional right.

In the Dubya v. Gore opinion, the Supes effectively refuted this claim. They held the interest of a candidate (in the words of Scalia, in not “casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election”) to be paramount over actually looking to find and tally all the legitimate ballots. Of course, this is perhaps one of the worst decisions ever to emanate from the Supreme Court; fortunately they took the prophylactic step of saying that the opinion should be ignored henceforth....

Cheers,

Quote
October 21, 2009, 5:25 pm
Kirk Lazarus says:

To stop in-person fraud, why not take a DNA sample from each person as they vote? Each sample could be sequenced and computers would detect duplicates, and cross-check against databases of citizen DNA and felon DNA.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 5:32 pm
Phatty says:

Kirk, your general idea isn’t bad. Except instead of DNA samples (which are intrusive and expensive to sequence) simply have every person who votes also give a thumb print. Each voter would turn in one ballot and one thumb-print card. The thumb print cards would be scanned into a computer, which would ensure that there are no duplicates and ensure that the total number of votes is equal to the total number of distinct prints.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 6:15 pm
loki13 says:

Phatty,

You’re not really aware of how fingerprint matching works, are you? It’s not really CSI in real life. :)

Quote
October 21, 2009, 6:27 pm
ASlyJD says:

Okay, Oren, I feel like apologizing, since you’re actually younger than me.
[I never had issues buying alcohol, as I got wine from my dad in high school and then had my husband buy it for me in college. Getting married at 18 has a few benefits. :)]
Of course, my writing normally sounds like it originates from one whose rear is stuffed with tweed, so let that be a lesson in the difficulty of guessing someone’s age from his writing style.

One can, in fact, acquire ID without ID. It involves having an address from which to request a birth certificate, which may not be available to a homeless person. But again, we run into the issue of whether our system should be arranged around allowing those without jobs or assets to vote conveniently. I’m not terribly sympathetic to the argument that those who have made such a mess of their lives they have no ID nor a convenient way to acquire an ID should have the luxury of a voting system arranged around their needs.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 6:38 pm
Bob in SeaTac says:

Zuch clearly doesn’t understand what Bush vs. Gore said: Counting rules cannot be changed in the middle of vote counting.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 6:48 pm
Oren says:

But again, we run into the issue of whether our system should be arranged around allowing those without jobs or assets to vote conveniently. I’m not terribly sympathetic to the argument that those who have made such a mess of their lives they have no ID nor a convenient way to acquire an ID should have the luxury of a voting system arranged around their needs.

Perhaps you are right, such a system would be preferable to what we have now.

As I understand it, our current Republic is not organized on that principle, but rather on the principle that a homeless man’s right to vote is equal to mine.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 7:09 pm
zuch says:

Bob in SeaTac:

Zuch clearly doesn’t understand what Bush vs. Gore said: Counting rules cannot be changed in the middle of vote counting.

On the contrary, I know well what it said. And it didn’t say that. OTOH, it did say pretty much what I said. The proper plaintiff in an equal protection claim is the person whose rights were violated. That wasn’t Dubya (who wasn’t even a Florida voter who might plausibly have claimed vote dilution or some such nonsense). But the decision was to terminate the recount and thus leave the hundreds of legal but uncounted ballots uncounted, thus making sure that votes would be counted differently in different counties (some had done manual recounts under court order, but others [in Republican-leaning areas] had done their own “stealth” manual recounts, and others had no manual recount done at all). After much hand-waving about “equal protection” and how it was such a travesty that different ballots might possibly be treated differently, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a halt to the effort to remedy this with a statewide recount, and ordered that the unequal treatment be allowed to stand. IOW, their “remedy” was to produce the very situation they railed about in Part I of their cowardly and dishonest per curiam opinion.

Cheers,

Quote
October 21, 2009, 7:46 pm
Brett Bellmore says:

To stop in-person fraud, why not take a DNA sample from each person as they vote?

Because it’s too expensive as yet. And photo ID will get you 99% of the way there, very cheaply.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 7:48 pm
ChrisTS says:

A SlyJD:

But again, we run into the issue of whether our system should be arranged around allowing those without jobs or assets to vote conveniently.

This an astonishing comment. Perhaps we should just return to poll taxes or property qualifications?

We, who claim that ours is the truest [representative] democracy in history, should be most scrupulous about ensuring the ability of every citizen to vote.

By the way, some citizens – an increasing number in the current economic situation — do not have “jobs or assets.” That does make them less than full citizens.

Indeed, some of us think that those who benefit least from existing systems most deserve to make their voices heard in elections.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 8:10 pm
Douglas2 says:

Got any solid evidence that there are significant number of eligible voters who have no government-issued ID at all?

Yes, here you go. LINK

Ah yes, Georgia, et al. v. Billups, et al.
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200714664.pdf

I suspect that they might have done better if their database of people “without ID” did not include the district court judge who heard the case. They eventually found some plaintiffs who in-fact did not have ID, but only after delaying the court date as I recall. Perhaps the Voter ID being free, and even a bus-pass counting as valid government issue ID for voting, made it a difficult case.

Just as the Indiana case might have turned out differently of one of the “harmed” was not actually a registered voter in a different state. The link to the Indiana case above is to a sob-story about elderly nuns who were “turned away” after voting provisional ballots. They would have been eligible to vote with absentee ballots. As it stands now, however, despite the “win” for the Indiana photo ID law in the US Supreme Court it has been struck down by a state court panel because of the disparate impact on absentee and polling-place voters.

Somehow the panel counts the dozens of voters who used provisional ballots and did not subsequently verify their ID as evidence of disenfranchisement rather than as evidence of ineligible voters trying to vote.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 9:22 pm
Oren says:

Somehow the panel counts the dozens of voters who used provisional ballots and did not subsequently verify their ID as evidence of disenfranchisement rather than as evidence of ineligible voters trying to vote.

Second class ballots for second class citizens.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 9:44 pm
Bruce Hayden says:

zuch: But the decision was to terminate the recount and thus leave the hundreds of legal but uncounted ballots uncounted, thus making sure that votes would be counted differently in different counties (some had done manual recounts under court order, but others [in Republican-leaning areas] had done their own “stealth” manual recounts, and others had no manual recount done at all). After much hand-waving about “equal protection” and how it was such a travesty that different ballots might possibly be treated differently, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a halt to the effort to remedy this with a statewide recount, and ordered that the unequal treatment be allowed to stand. IOW, their “remedy” was to produce the very situation they railed about in Part I of their cowardly and dishonest per curiam opinion.

You do seem to have an amazing ability to redefine reality better to your liking.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 10:08 pm
Bruce Hayden says:

And, I really do disagree with the claim that refusing to allow someone to vote is worse than allowing someone who isn’t qualified to vote to vote.

In the end, there is no real difference in your state of affairs if you are denied the right to vote, or someone is allowed to vote illegally for the opposing candidate. The bottom line is the same. The candidate that you wanted to win has one fewer votes in comparison to the opposing candidate than if the denial/fraud had not occurred. Anything else is word games, and exalting form over reality.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 10:13 pm
ArthurKirkland says:

Unlawful use of absentee ballots is widespread. Some jurisdictions prohibit use of an absentee ballot unless the voter expects to be (1) incapable of travel to the polling place or (2) outside the election district during the entirety of the voting day. The intent is emphasized by a requirement that if the submitter of an absentee ballot is within the election district when the polls are open and is physically able to travel, that voter must report to the polling place, withdraw the absentee ballot and vote in person.

I have witnessed countless voters standing outside a polling place, distributing campaign literature or taking the names of voters to support get-out-the-vote programs, while their names are listed on the wall inside that polling place among absentee ballot submitters.

Unlawful use of an absentee ballot by the identified voter is one problem. Misuse of an absentee ballot (by a spouse, a parent, someone with access to ballots mailed to institutions) is a different problem, and a crime far easier to commit than arranging in-person voter fraud.

Anecdote: My municipality is approximately 40 percent Republican, 35 percent Democratic, 25 percent non-partisan. The absentee ballots (which identify the voter’s party registration) are generally at least two-thirds Republican. For years, I have checked the posted absentee ballot lists at hundreds of polling places and would, based on those observations, wager that Republicans submit substantially more than half of absentee ballots despite constituting less than one-third of the registered voters in the relevant region. Interestingly, the proportions seems to be closer among politically active persons (committee members, candidates, poll watchers, etc.). The disproportionality appears to derive from ‘nonpolitical’ Republicans.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 10:15 pm
Joe says:

If a someone votes fraudulently, that affects the rights of no one unless it changed the outcome of the election.

Rights or not, at some point (see Iran) even if the person with the most votes won, a tainted result will cause much disrespect of the whole system, which has a tendency to lead to harm to the rights being enjoyed. If the system is deemed too fraudulent, e.g., fewer might vote. etc.

The ultimate point is in this country the problem is trivial [to be generous], the solution [“solution”] more harm than it’s worth. Slamming flies with mallets, and doing so selectively in the process.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 10:28 pm
zuch says:

Bruce Hayden:

You do seem to have an amazing ability to redefine reality better to your liking.

Perhaps there’s something I said that doesn’t comport with your “reality”? C’mon, man, don’t keep us waiting, out with it!

Cheers,

Quote
October 21, 2009, 10:43 pm
Oren says:

In the end, there is no real difference in your state of affairs if you are denied the right to vote, or someone is allowed to vote illegally for the opposing candidate. The bottom line is the same.

Agreed. My intuition is that voter-id laws suppress more legitimate votes than they prevent fraudulent ones, although I admit that empirical data for that assertion (or the contrary assertion) are hard to come by.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 10:53 pm
mattski says:

Bruce Hayden: In the end, there is no real difference in your state of affairs if you are denied the right to vote, or someone is allowed to vote illegally for the opposing candidate. The bottom line is the same. The candidate that you wanted to win has one fewer votes in comparison to the opposing candidate than if the denial/fraud had not occurred. Anything else is word games, and exalting form over reality.

The only problem is that you’re constructing a hypothetical with no basis except the “worst-case scenario” of your imagination. Unless you assume that “fraudulent” votes will always go against your candidate your argument is completely incoherent.

***You should also prepare to be schooled by zuch re Bush v Gore.

Quote
October 21, 2009, 11:34 pm
Mark Field says:

In the end, there is no real difference in your state of affairs if you are denied the right to vote, or someone is allowed to vote illegally for the opposing candidate. The bottom line is the same. The candidate that you wanted to win has one fewer votes in comparison to the opposing candidate than if the denial/fraud had not occurred. Anything else is word games, and exalting form over reality.

Nonsense. Aside from the point mattski made, the asymmetry I pointed out — winner take all means no one’s right is affected in almost all cases; depriving an eligible voter DOES involve the loss of a right — leads directly to an important conclusion: we should devote more effort to protecting the right of people to vote than we do to preventing ineligible voters from voting.

Now, this equation could change if ineligible voters constituted a greater problem (Joe’s point). But so far, the evidence for that is non-existent.

Quote
October 22, 2009, 12:14 am
Sammy Finkelman says:

Anything that promotes more absentee voting — inclu inccluding in person voter ID laws — promotes fraudulant voting.

Quote
October 22, 2009, 1:22 am
egd says:

Bob in SeaTac: Zuch clearly doesn’t understand what Bush vs. Gore said: Counting rules cannot be changed in the middle of vote counting.

But as we learned in the 2008 Minnesota senatorial election, changing the rules in the middle of the game is the only way Democrats can win close races.

Quote
October 22, 2009, 8:55 am
egd says:

mattski: How do you know for whom a particular fraudulent vote is cast? If a fraudulent vote is cast for your candidate then your right to vote has been amplified by fraud.

So voter fraud is O.K., as long as the right guys are doing it?

Is this really the Democrats position on voter fraud? It would explain a lot of party actions.

Quote
October 22, 2009, 8:58 am
DjDiverDan says:

BN: In person voter fraud is a wicked huge problem despite the fact that there isn’t any evidence it is a wicked huge problem. Thanks for that insight my friend.

Actually, if you want an example, please take a close look at the voting patterns in Cook County, Illinois during the 1960 Presidential Election, when Daley’s Democratic Machine provided buses which were loaded up with bums and winos and driven from polling station to polling station; at each stop, each person on the bus was handed out voter registration cards, usually for people who were dead or had moved out of Chicago years ago, and directed to vote the straight Democratic Ticket. Each Wino was handsomely rewarded with bottles of Thunderbird or Mad Dog at the end of the tour, during which each had voted several times. Few people remember how close the 1960 Election was — without Illinois, JFK would have lost the Election, and Richard Nixon would have had little reason to become the bitter, paranoid man he was in later life. The Democratic Machine in Chicago stole the Election for JFK, using means that could have easily been prevented if a photo ID requuirement for voters was in place.

Quote
October 22, 2009, 9:02 am
FantasiaWHT says:

Just gotta point out, your conclusion is a huge fallacy, Adler. How does this prove that absentee ballot fraud is a “far more serious” problem than in-person voter fraud? Don’t get me wrong, I agree it’s a problem, but you don’t help your argument by making such a leap.

Quote
October 22, 2009, 9:30 am
ASlyJD says:

Chris & Oren,

There’s a difference between being poor and being so removed from society that one has no id. My husband has had no employment for a year, our net worth is far below zero, and yet he still has a way of proving who he is. Try walking into Checksmart et al without an ID and see how well doing anything works without it. Actually, just try cashing a personal check over $25 at any of them, even with an ID. Took me three tries to find one willing to do it this summer, and they took 10% right off the top. A person without any ID is a person who hasn’t cashed any check anywhere (so not a government beneficiary), hasn’t worked a job above the table, has never purchased or rented housing, in short is a person who is completely unfamiliar with the real world and is probably a tax evader.

(BTW, I completely agree about expired driver’s licenses ought to be valid proof of identity, and state issued ID should always be free.)

As for provisional ballots being “second class ballots for second class citizens,” I’ll define a second class citizen as one so unengaged from the political process that he didn’t register in time, doesn’t know to which precinct he belongs or doesn’t know where he ought to vote — those being the three main reasons a person must cast a provisional ballot.

And here is our fundamental difference between Oren and me — I think voting is so important that if a person isn’t willing to register in time, read the mailings from the precinct that state where one is to vote, and then be able to demonstrate who they are, that person doesn’t really deserve to vote. Whereas the opposing view is that anybody, no matter how little they know or care about the process, needs to be able to walk in wherever they damn well please to fill in their bubbles, and how dare you even ask that they prove they are who they say they are. I suppose the aphorism should be “better that ten fake votes be counted than one society dropout’s vote be missed.”

Quote
October 22, 2009, 10:19 am
Martha says:

“Anything that promotes more absentee voting – inclu inccluding in person voter ID laws – promotes fraudulant voting.”

One thing that promotes absentee voting is poor management of the in-person vote. A couple of years ago, my partner and I went to vote in a local election and discovered that the optical scan machines (where you mark a paper ballot, as with a scantron exam) had been replaced by touch screen machines. The touch screens were poorly calibrated, making it difficult to register a vote for preferred candidates, and they provided no paper record to reassure us that our votes were properly recorded. The elderly poll workers were clearly befuddled by the technology. We vowed right then to vote absentee until the machines were changed, because absentee voting produces a tangible ballot that anyone can verify. (Fortunately, within the next couple of elections, optical scan machines were brought back.)

Sure, let’s provide free government id and then check that id at the polls. But unreliable voting equipment is a more serious problem.

Quote
October 22, 2009, 10:25 am
mattski says:

I wrote:

How do you know for whom a particular fraudulent vote is cast? If a fraudulent vote is cast for your candidate then your right to vote has been amplified by fraud.

egd responded:

So voter fraud is O.K., as long as the right guys are doing it?
Is this really the Democrats position on voter fraud? It would explain a lot of party actions.

I’m having a hard time figuring out how you got from what I wrote to what you wrote. Kindly bear in mind that I was responding to the unwarranted assumptions of another commenter.

Seriously, I have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote
October 22, 2009, 11:42 am
zuch says:

egd:

Bob in SeaTac: Zuch clearly doesn’t understand what Bush vs. Gore said: Counting rules cannot be changed in the middle of vote counting.

But as we learned in the 2008 Minnesota senatorial election, changing the rules in the middle of the game is the only way Democrats can win close races.

In some alternate universe or on BizarroWorld, perhaps.

Meanwhile, here on planet Earth....:

In the aftermath of Palm Beach County v. Harris, there were claims of changing standards. But in Dubya v. Bush, there was no such issue ... in part because the counts at issue hadn’t even taken place yet!!! But the Dubya v. Gore decision stopped the statewide recounts, the only thing that could have imposed more uniform and more detailed and specific standards across the board, but left the previous recounts from the four counties resulting from PBC v. Harris in place!!! If indeed there had been sufficiently non-uniform standards in those initial and limited recounts (which is arguable), then the proper course would have been to correct this “equal protection violation” with proper and uniform recounts (and to do so statewide, as the Florida government was preparing to do). But this is precisely what the Dubya people wanted to stop, and which the U.S. Supreme Court did stop, thus ensuring that the alleged “constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy” would in fact be left in place. IOW, the very “violation of the Equal Protection Clause” the per curiam found in Part I would be left in place ... no actual remedy would actually be ordered.

Cheers,

Quote
October 22, 2009, 12:34 pm
zuch says:

DjDiverDan:

Few people remember how close the 1960 Election was – without Illinois, JFK would have lost the Election, and Richard Nixon would have had little reason to become the bitter, paranoid man he was in later life.

Nope. See here, amongst other places.

Cheers,

Quote
October 22, 2009, 12:39 pm
zuch says:

ASlyJD:

As for provisional ballots being “second class ballots for second class citizens,” I’ll define a second class citizen as one so unengaged from the political process that he didn’t register in time, doesn’t know to which precinct he belongs or doesn’t know where he ought to vote — those being the three main reasons a person must cast a provisional ballot.

... or wrongly purged from the voter rolls by Republican campaign co-chair Katherine Harris along with her buddies Choicepoint/DBT....

And I’d note the observation that Ann Coulter is “so unengaged from the political process” should afford a chuckle.

Cheers,

Quote
October 22, 2009, 12:43 pm
Sammy Finkelman says:

The use of touch screens for voting is one of the more obviously wrong things to come along (but it illustrates the difficulty of government avoiding obvious stupid mistakes) Anyone who has
ever dealt with touch screens knows there is a problem with them.

Where things really need to work, as at an ATM, often there
is an alternative way of hitting things, as for instance buttons, or the touch screens may actuially work right.

I think none of the systems that are under consideration in New York involve touch screens now. The systems I think are actually extremely cumbersome ways to mark a paper ballot. Thanks to sucessful footdragging though we are still using voting machines in New York.

In New York, it’s still 1935 (well, these machines are actually from 1962)

We alwaqys used to have a problem with people losing their votees — maybe one person in 50 or more — because people pulled the lever the other way before they actually voted. Apparently the Board of Elections was somewhere pretending taht this
was on purpose. There actually was a fix for it — which had
been disabled within a few years of the purchase of these machines. Maybe it was really some kind of inside political deal (for instance maybe more Democratic votes were lost this way than Republicans and it benefitted Governor Rockefeller running statewide, while it didn’t hurt local Democrats much) The fix was put back in after the Help America Vote Act. The fix consisted of creating a dummy vote at the bottom right of the machine — a lever olored silver — which someone could cast in the event they went into vote and discovered that there was nobody they wanted to vote for. The claim earlier for disabling that was that without that people could breask the machine by pulling the lever back right away.

There is only case of in person voter fraud (not done by one person or two ating alone) that I heard of. I read about this in the last year or so. There was a case in Brooklyn in the 1980s where a lot of fictional were registered and then voted.

The key facts that made this both logical and possible were:

1) A very small amount of legitimate absentee voting — otherwise anyone wanting to do this would have used absentee ballots. Not
only is it easier logistically, there is no risk that the phony voter will not vote the way someine wants — or not remember
what to do and how to do it.

2) The people committing the fraud did not control the voting machinery — or else there would be much easier ways to commit fraud. There is no need to have actual voters cast votes if you control the election machinery, and this is true even in Afghanistan. (In Afghanistan this year the sites of some polling places were insecure and so independent monitors couldn’t get there. Some of these sites never actually opened but votes — in some case 100% for Karzai — were reported.)

3) An almost complete lack of organized political opposition in the area. It maybe wasn’t secret„ but it was relatively safe for a few years.

On any large scale — large enough to affect an election — it can’t be done in secret.

By the way, the case in Troy New York this year — which was discovered even though only a few people voted (by absentee)
in the name of real living registered voters, was done in a Working Families Party primary. It sounds like the goal (which apparently failed — therefore the mention of what could have happened in November) was to give the Democratic candidate their line (only party leaders can allow non-members to run in the primary or be on the ballot) — but in this case some members of the Working Families Party had instigated a primary. Because the membership was very small only a few dozen votes were needed. In New York but in very few other states, candidates can be cross-endorsed, and often are. Bloomberg for instance this year I think
has 3 ballot lines.

The biggest preventative of in person voter fraud is: registration of voters.

That very simple thing, without any ID necessary, went a great deal of the way toward eliminating that 100 or so years ago. People also used to need to present ID to register. The IDs were either

1) A birth certificate — which in those days were not re-issued by states years later (Now they are not considered ID at all, but only proof that a certain person was born in a certain place on a certain date.)

2) Naturalization papers.

Both of these were difficult to forge and usually unnecesary to forge — not needed for very much so there was no industry set up to do that. (There would no point in forging naturalization papers for a passport, since there was a record in Washington I believe)

I think people got issued voter cards. This is no longer being done but a few old people may still think they are necessarty in order to vote.

A final precaution was a signature — which people used to pay more attention to than they do today.

By the way state issued picture ID would not necessarily prevent organized in person fraudulant voting by people who did not control the election machinery.

There was a case I read about.. it happened in Israel — in 1999.

There was a minor religious party (Israel has proportional representation) which collected ID cards (used in Israel for voting) and then assembled men hired to be the fraudulant voters.

They assembled say 50 or 100 men and then matched them up with the pictures that looked most like them (more than one per person) They had to memorize the number, because being able to recite the number from memory is a kind of test used at polling places. Now what made this make sense was:

1) the people who sold or gave away their votes trusted the people to whom they gave their ID cards to get them back to them.

2) Because only one form of ID could be used, the people who took them knew that the voter would not stupidly go ahead and vote anyway.

3) There was more certainty as to who wsas going to be voted for — and for that matter that a vote would be cast at all.

This system would of coursde not have worked in New York State because the voter could not deprive himself of the ability to vote anyway by handinbg over a picture OID and because while someone can use someone else’s picture ID it is much harder to copy someone’s signature especially when you have never seen it before..

The only other way to be sure a real voter does not show up is for the registered voter to be dead or nonexistent.

Quote
October 22, 2009, 12:54 pm
DjDiverDan says:

Zuch, I acknowledge that Illinois alone would not have been enough to put Nixon over the top in 1960, but Illinois was the closest (Kennedy won by less than 9,000 votes), while the fraud in Cook County was the most egregious — Daley delivered Kennedy a net win of over 450,000 votes in Cook County only by achieving a voter turnout of nearly 89% (much of which was accomplished by ghost voters). Early in 1961, one journalist found a cemetary in Chicago where every name on every tombstone represented someone who apparently voted in November 1960; there was one address in Chicago that voting rolls showed as the residence of 56 registered voters (all of whom voted in November), but it was a 2 Bedroom house (god, morning must have been HELL trying to get into the only bathroom!); another 3 registered voters, all of whom voted, claimed they resided in a vacant lot, while there was an abandoned and condemned warehouse which was the official residence of over 250 Chicago voters (should we give the warehouse a prize for its 100% voter turnout?). While these cases were brought up in Republican challenges, all challenges were thrown out by a Democratic Judge, whose reward was a Federal Judgeship from Kennedy.

BUT, you ignore the fact that Kennedy also carried Texas by just 46,000 votes, helped a great deal by “Landslide Lyndon” Johnson. Based on his own history of vote fraud (i.e., the way he had beaten Stevenson, a very popular former Texas Governor, for his Senate Seat), LBJ’s crooked machine was capable of producing many times the 46,000 votes needed to put Kennedy over the top; there were several precincts in LBJ’s South Texas political stronghold that delivered many more Kennedy Votes than the total number of voters that cast votes (INCLUDING all absentee ballots) — NONE of those votes were stricken from Kennedy’s Texas tally.

Quote
October 22, 2009, 1:58 pm
zuch says:

DjDiverDan:

OIC. So because Johnson was crooked, he must have done crooked things. Petitio principii.

But I’d note your original claim was (and I quote):

[DDD]: “Few people remember how close the 1960 Election was – without Illinois, JFK would have lost the Election, and Richard Nixon would have had little reason to become the bitter, paranoid man he was in later life.”

To be honest, I truly do not remember that. But it’s nice to know I’m in good company. ;-)

Cheers,

Quote
October 22, 2009, 4:50 pm
Cato The Elder says:

Not many people know that Joe Kennedy Sr., who directed much of his son’s presidential campaigning behind the scenes, was intimately connected with the Chicago Mob starting from his Prohibition days smuggling liquor. Bill Bonnano, son of Five Family patriarch Joe “Crazy Bananas” Bonnano writes about the sordid business of electing JFK through voter fraud in his book Bound By Honor: A Mafioso’s Story. One reason I hate the Kennedy family so much is that from the beginning they were mired in corruption yet they’ve somehow managed to convince quite a few people to elevate them like royalty today.

Quote
October 22, 2009, 4:59 pm
Laura(southernxyl) says:

How do you know for whom a particular fraudulent vote is cast? If a fraudulent vote is cast for your candidate then your right to vote has been amplified by fraud.

In the vote fraud case I linked to, the precinct chosen for audit went 100% for the Democratic candidate.

Furthermore, I am no more pleased by the concept of fraud amplifying my vote than I am of fraud diluting it. Please, please tell me that principle is not a concept owned solely by people who vote Republican.

Quote
October 22, 2009, 6:37 pm
mattski says:

Please, please tell me that principle is not a concept owned solely by people who vote Republican.

Breath easy, Laura. I’m opposed to voter fraud, unequivocally.

As the many thoughtful comments on this thread have demonstrated, however, the proper context for this question is much larger than you have allowed.

Quote
October 22, 2009, 7:01 pm
Laura(southernxyl) says:

I have not allowed a proper context for the question?

Quote
October 23, 2009, 7:57 am
CJColucci says:

Not many people know that Joe Kennedy Sr., who directed much of his son’s presidential campaigning behind the scenes, was intimately connected with the Chicago Mob starting from his Prohibition days smuggling liquor.

I suppose this is literally true, in the trivial sense that not many people know much of anything, but I knew it and lots of people I know knew it. I’d be surprised if this were unusually esoteric knowledge.

Quote
October 23, 2009, 8:33 am
Cato The Elder says:

I mostly just wanted to plug the book, CJColucci. From it:

“Kennedy won by the thinnest of margins and with our help in the crucial state of Illinois. It is no secret now that Kennedy’s nine-thousand-vote win the state was accomplished with more than the usual ‘graveyard vote’, regularly employed by big-city machines. Sam Giancana strutted around for a while, bragging that in wards controlled by his Family, Kennedy’s margin of victory was more than 80 percent — considerably more than the totals piled up in other wards of the city. Republican party officials in the state, after an unofficial canvas of votes, came up with enough phony votes to show that Nixon had actually taken the state by about five thousand votes. According to Sam, and others, Nixon, who had his own friends in our world, was ‘persuaded’ not to challenge the outcome. Nixon conceded defeat the morning after the election, forgoing the opportunity of having an official recount in Illinois.”

The book is also pretty interesting in how it examines the Mob’s antipathy to Castro, and Kennedy’s considerations of their casino interests with regards to the Bay of Pigs invasion. Just an incredibly tangled web. Admittedly, even though I think the US has been slowly falling apart since then, the ‘60s sound like a crazy good time to have been living.

Quote
October 23, 2009, 10:18 am
Oren says:

Admittedly, even though I think the US has been slowly falling apart since [the 60s]

Yeah, there’s nothing like a half century of peace, liberty, prosperity and technological advances on a scale unprecedented in human history to really destroy a country.

Quote
October 23, 2009, 9:06 pm

A Stolen Election in New York?

146 Comments

egd says:

BN says:

Monty says:

Joe says:

Daniel Chapman says:

kdackson says:

egd says:

Constant says:

BN says:

anomdebus says:

egd says:

Disintelligentsia says:

kdackson says:

PatHMV says:

anomdebus says:

wfjag says:

Steve says:

BN says:

John Burgess says:

yankee says:

JRL says:

Mark Field says:

Jim Miller says:

zuch says:

David Nieporent says:

zuch says:

kdackson says:

Oren says:

Vader says:

zuch says:

zuch says:

kdackson says:

zuch says:

BN says:

David Nieporent says:

zuch says:

David Nieporent says:

zuch says:

fwb says:

BN says:

Laura(southernxyl) says:

DjDiverDan says:

David Nieporent says:

Oren says:

yao says:

BN says:

Rich says:

kdackson says:

RPT says:

NickM says:

kdackson says:

CJColucci says:

Oren says:

Oren says:

David Nieporent says:

Mark Field says:

Laura(southernxyl) says:

zuch says:

kdackson says:

Jim Miller says:

kdackson says:

kdackson says:

zuch says:

gasman says:

zuch says:

Joe says:

zuch says:

zuch says:

kdackson says:

Dave N says:

Joe says:

arbitraryaardvark says:

Oren says:

Dan Weber says:

Oren says:

zuch says:

loki13 says: