Federal indictments have issued against four individuals who had been working on ACORN voter registration drives in Missouri. These indictments are supposedly part of a national investigation into fraudulent voter applications. Unlike prior reports of dead-people voting, here there are allegations of actual fraud. Gateway Pundit has more.
Perhaps because I grew up in Philadelphia at a time when vote fraud was all too common, I see potential vote fraud as a serious concern (and one that supporters of either party may commit). This does not mean that I dismiss concerns about disenfranchisement, quite to the contrary. Those who are eligible to vote should be able to do so without interference, but I have seen elections stolen through fraud, and believe it can still happen today.
Related Posts (on one page):
- "The Acorn Indictments":
- Vote Fraud Indictments in K.C.:
The criminal punishments are not fraud per se, and the rhetoric is beyond the truth.
What appears to be happening is that ACORN pays volunteers to collect registrants. They are paid by the registered voter. In order to increase their payments, they make up names. These names will never vote, and will lay dormant.
Republicans have targeted this fraud, whose only cost is financially to ACORN, as a way of keeping ACORN from registering poor and minority voters at all. By using disproportionate criminal punishment for the submission of these fake names, ACORN puts itself in far too high a liability to even other forms of voter registration drive. By taking away this method of registration, ACORN can no longer help poor and minority voters, legitimate ones, from registering to vote. As a result (and intentionally so), poor and minority voters are less likely to go to the polls, and vote their preferences.
Professor Adler also once again far overstates his claim by saying this is actual allegations of fraud. There is no indication (as far as I am aware of) that any of the fake names in the 2004 or 2002 elections, or at all since ACORN has done voter registration drives, has ever voted in an actual election - and in the Gregorie election in Washington State, this was VERY much looked into.
I am not sure whether Adler is actually (and foolishly) concerned about actual fraud or simply trying to legitimize disenfranchisement efforts in order to deter actual democracy. Either way, he should reconsider whether his efforts are actually beneficial to society.
Once again, Adler is either confused or intentionally distorts when he says there is fraud. There IS fraud, but the fraud is perpetrated by paid agents of ACORN on ACORN, and is only financial fraud. The "fraud" of having dormant and fake names is of only the most minor relevance, as the cost to the government is solely extra paper.
That would be actual fraud. Here in Minnesota once you are registered you don't have to show any ID, just simply give your name. This can lead to massive untraceable fraud.
The whole disenfranchisement argument just doesn't wash. Anyone that is legally able to vote can do so, having to show an ID is not preventing anyone from voting that has a right to do so.
I'm glad to see the theme of "I see dead people" voting is being carried forward in this plot line!
You need to read more closely. The linked items specifically say that the individuals were charged with voter fraud for turning in false voter applications to the election board. Sure, they may have cheated ACORN -- ACORN wanted valid registrations -- but the individuals in question were indicted for voter fraud, not defrauding ACORN.
As for prior elections, I was referring specifically to the 1993 state senate race in Pennsylvania, where William Stinson stole the election out from under Bruce Marks (and the result was eventually voided), as well as the various elecytion shenanigans we've seen in Miami, though these are hardly the only examples.
Once again, Justin should read my posts more carefully before jumping to erroneous conclusions and hurling baseless accusations.
JHA
Their arguments tend to go something like this:
-Voter fraud isn't common because there are laws against voter fraud. However, laws against voter fraud shouldn't be enforced because voter fraud isn't common.
-We don't need new laws and regulations to fight voter fraud (e.g., voter IDs) because it would unnecessarily disenfranchise voters. We already have sufficient laws to combat voter fraud. However, we should not enforce the laws against voter fraud because it would unnecessarily disenfranchise voters.
How does Justin know that those names will never vote?
Or, is he simply assuming something that his argument requires?
Hmmmm.
Suppose that there are two candidates running for office. I support Candidate A over Candidate B.
Disenfranchisement: I am prevented from voting for Candidate A.
Fraudulent votes: I vote for Candidate A, and a fraudulent vote is cast for Candidate B.
The effective result is the same in both cases. Either my vote is never counted, or it is cancelled out by fraud.
I know what they were charged with. I can read. You have completely missed the point.
What ACORN did was technically illegal, but only in thesense that the election laws have been written and interpreted to make what ACORN does as difficult as possible.
Whether ACORN is to blame, whether there will be any votes cast that are not on behalf of real people legally empowered to cast them, and what the affects this will be on the ability of poor and minorities may be unimportant to you. This speaks volumes about your own motives.
It is unfortunate that so many years after Women and African Americans have won the right to vote, people such as yourself see the law as simply a tool to limit that right in as many ways as possible in order to enforce their minority political preferences on a majority of American citizens because it is profitable to them at the other's expense.
But once again, please do not be (what I see clearly now) intentionally deceptive. Whatever the charges are, there is *no* fraud here, when fraud is defined as illegal votes cast, the only useful definition for which we have.
This branch, at least, seems to not be paying by the registrant. FTA: "Harris said ACORN workers are paid by the hour and not by the number of voter registration cards they turn in." It's clear from the article, though, that ACORN is intolerant of the fraud, and actively cooperated in the investigation. Good for them.
What I said is there no evidence that these names have voted, despite the fact there has been long term awareness of this issue and much research (both neutrally in the case of Washingotn State, and for partisanship reasons elsewhere), and there has been, as far as I am aware of, not a single instance of a "fake" registrant voting. Certainly, the odds that there are significant numbers of such nonexistant people voting are as close to zero as one could imagine, given such efforts to uncover the fraud, and given how easy uncovering that fraud would be.
That's not actual fraud. That's potential fraud. And regardless of the potential for fraud, there has been no showing, as far as I am aware of (and anyone can feel free to correct me with an empirical showing) of any nonexistant person voting in this regard.
Now, we could have a seperate discussion about the potential for fraud via a massive conspiracy that you envision (though apparently we cannot have one for Diebold machines, voter disenfranchisement via both legal and illegal means, and vote suppression and intimidation). What we cannot do, despite your efforts, is assume that this has already occurred.
Well, the people in this case, who submitted fraudulent voter registration cards did it because they were lazy employees, who did not want their supervisors to think that they were slacking off, not because they were planning to influence an elections. Thus, they filled out voter registration cards with fake names or addresses, or names of people who did not actually register with them.
ACORN has been investigated about this type of thing before, especially after the 2004 election. And this type of "fraud" occurs in just about every registration drive where money is used as an incentive -- whether paying per registrant or paying by the hour. However, no one has ever pointed to any instance where these fake registrants have voted in an election. So there appears to be no reason to think that this time will be any different.
I don't disagree that this kind of registration fraud should be illegal, but it is hardly a menace as it does not affect voting in any way.
“Investigators said about 35,000 questionable registration forms for new voters were collected by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a group that works to improve minority and low-income communities.” (emphasis in original).
But the underlying article actually said:
“Investigators said questionable registration forms for new voters were collected by the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, a group that works to improve minority and low-income communities.”
There is a huge difference between “35,000 questionable registration forms” and “questionable registration forms” and Adler’s uncritical citation to the Gateway pundit who deliberately mis-cites an article to suggest that the scale of fraud is huge belies his concerns in the second paragraph about the problems of fraud vs. disenfranchisement. I, too, am concerned about fraud, but disenfranchisement is a much bigger problem today. One wonders why alleged voter fraud is such a burning issue that it deserves posting on this otherwise worthwhile website, but disenfranchisement (the long lines in Ohio in the last general election) and the scarier hackable voting machines are rarely, if ever, mentioned by Adler.
Comment on absentee fraud by me
How can anyone who's seriously worried about vote fraud not be scared ____less of the potential for fraud with electronic, paperless voting?
I simply don't understand the widespread insistence on electronic voting without even a paper receipt; indeed, it sounds like a deliberate argument for enabling fraud.
Any thoughts?
Is there any known case in recent history of even 1 person being prevented from voting? I believe you have reversed your scenarios.
This is an interesting issue because there are 2 distinct camps on the left regarding the voter verified paper or audit trail. One group advocates it believing fraud is being perpetrated against them because Diebold gave money to Republicans, whereas the other side is dead set against any paper trail because of the self-awareness that voter fraud overwhelming helps Democrats (see, e.g. Professor Tokaji).
Registering to vote is very easy in every state.
How is registering fake names to vote not fraud?
JRl, less than one minute on google found thisthis article regarding Florida's purge of its voting rolls in response to its felon disenfranchisement law. The purge resulted in thousands of innocent people to be denied their right to vote because they had names similar to people who had committed a felony.
To be more accurate, it is not "vote fraud," rather it is registration fraud. As a result the title of Prof. Adler's post is factually incorrect and misleading.
That's garbage. And you know it. You are smearing people with your assumptions of bad motives because you can't win your point--that vote fraud should be ignored--on its merits.
You are an idiot, and allow me to back up this personal attack.
A) ACORN doesn't pay per person registered. ACORN pays an hourly rate. Just read the article.
B) In the states that I am familiar with, filing a false voter registration is fraud.
So, to conclude, A) ACORN isn't being financially defrauded and B) The fraud that is occuring is voter/registration fraud.
False registrations may or may not be 'voter fraud', but given the lack of any ID requirement at the polls they make it easy to commit such fraud. Absent any profit motive for the ACORN workers, would you care to suggest some reason for their actions besides enabling voter fraud?
Humble, I know that Act Blue and I am pretty sure ACORN has at least in the past paid people by name in registration drives. I was unaware that in this situation this branch of ACORN did not, as I skimmed the article to just see if the "fraud" Adler recently discovered was anything different from events that everyone who was paying attention knew about. Nice "gotcha," but it does absolutely nothing to detract from any of my points.
The reason is obvious and already stated: It allows the people employed by ACORN to appear to be working and collecting signatures when they are not. It is not something that ACORN endorses, and its done specifically by agents and employees of ACORN to cheat them out of wages (in this case, in the past or in other cases it was commissions) that are unearned.
Either way, you probably should cite to his arguments, which I assume might be something along the lines of "I don't believe Diebold is cheating, and I'm concerned about the possibility of recorded votes taking away our fundemental tradition of a secret ballot" to the degree he has opposed a VVPT.
(Note: I do not know Professor Tokaji's position, and I have no idea whether he even opposed VVPT - I am just skeptical that JRL is simply relating his position in a fair light)
I agree with that. However, it seems that too many people have adopted the following view:
"If protections to prevent fraud prevent anyone from voting, but stop 200,000 cases of fraud, then that's a problem."
Policies to prevent fraud might cause disenfranchisement while policies to prevent disenfranchisement might allow for fraud. Obviously, there is a trade-off that needs to be balanced. Too many people cannot seem to understand this.
Since voter fraud is apparently so widespread in the absence of ID requirements, it ought to be trivially easy to present this evidence. So where is it?
Since we have no real processes in place to prevent voter fraud then we have nothing in place to detect when it does happen.
In MN and WI the only thing I need to do is get a list of registered voters and walk into the respective polling places and simply give a name off of the list and go vote. Someone can do this all day and never get caught and the fraud will not show up anywhere.
Why bother letting little pesky things like facts get in the way of your compelling narrative? Don't worry, I agree with you -- facts are highly overrated.
But, let's humor those fools who actually like accuracy in their information.
The main point of your first post was to argue that there wasn't any fraud and that if there was fraud, it was ACORN that was financially defrauded (because you are misinformed as to how ACORN paid its volunteers). Well, it turns out you had it exactly backwards. There wasn't financial fraud, but there was registration fraud.
But don't let that stop you Justin. You just keep on chuggin'
- fake registrations.
- parties for the homeless handing out cigarettes and beer in return for signed blank absentee ballots ("We had, like, 300 one night")
- voting in envery precinct in the city.
I have also worked as a poll watcher. And watched as two precincts who
- never had complete paperwork
- never knew who had voted
- always had "machine problems" that left them the last to turn in their votes
- always had enough votes to put whoever they were supporting over the top.
In that case, the Over the Top was a state senator. THe extra votes, by eyeball (kind of hard to "verify" in these circumstances, seemed to be enough straight-party line vots for the machine. Whether is put anyone else over the top or not was irrelevant. The senator was only eliminated by re-drawing of districts 2001.
The nature of voting fraud is without controls, you cannot say "This ballot is a fraud" Once cast, ballots are fungible, meaning you can't tie any ballot to a particular fradulent registration. This means you can only control fraud in two places: registration, and at the ballot box.
This is analogous to trying to identify financial fraud if corporations were required to keep no records. You simply could not do it. You need records, and authorizations. and receipts. Same thing for Election fraud.
From this *I* conclude:
- Voter Fraud happens far more often than makes the national press, because it isn't always about national
politics.
- Arguments that there is no proof are no more coonvincing than arguments made by officers of Enron. The lack of proof was because of a refusal to keep coherent records.
- Recordkeeping, always. is essential in fraud prevention. All kinds of fraud. Always.
That some suggest that recrods are not absolutely essential to establish trust, suggests a credulity that is either willfull, or foolish. I let Just sugest which drives him.
--First off we should note that ACORN itself first flagged the suspect cards 3 weeks ago and fired the workers for committing fraud.
--Second, ACORN itself turned the cards into the BOE because MO law requires it to turn in every card collected, even if they suspect the cards are fraudulent.
--In so doing ACORN also told the BOE the names of the fired workers and assisted in moving the legal process forward. They did the same thing when the FBI started investigating.
In other words, ACORN itself uncovered the fraud in KC and started the legal proceedings, subsequently cooperating with all aspects of the investigation. It feels as aggreived as the BOE.
Also, it should be noted that all investigations of previous fraud allegations have all cleared the organization of wrongdoing and in MN and CO resulted in prosecution of workers fired by ACORN for fraud. The worst charges, all in FL, were dismissed by a FL judge with prejudice.
Finally, for some reason, Instapundit has taken the number 35,000, which refers to the number of cards collected by ACORN in the KC region this year, and applied it to allegations of the number of cards considered to be fraudulent. This is either sloppy reporting or a deliberate distortion.
Here's the text of the statement ACORN released in conjunction with the indictments.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 1, 2006
For more information contact: Kevin Whelan 985-960-1108
ACORN APPLAUDS FBI INVESTIGATION OF INDIVIDUALS CONNECTED TO POSSIBLE MISCONDCUT IN K.C. VOTER REGISTRATION DRIVE
Kansas City, MO – Leaders of the community group ACORN today applauded the FBI for the steps it is taking to investigate individuals suspected in several cases of possible voter registration fraud that the group reported to authorities during a recent ACORN voter registration drive in the Kansas City area.
The individuals under investigation were temporary workers, hired--and later fired—by Kansas City ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to help in its large-scale voter registration drive, which helps thousands of Kansas City residents register to vote.
ACORN took the initiative on October 11 to contact the Kansas City Board of Elections and the Jackson County Prosecutor when the organization’s standard review process identified suspicious voter registration applications. ACORN provided to the Board and the prosecutor a letter with the name and contact information of the former employees who had collected the suspicious application. ACORN then facilitated the subsequent FBI inquiry by providing internal records documenting ACORN’s suspicion and other information as requested.. ACORN will continue to provide its full support and cooperation in the investigation.
“When we caught this misconduct, we reporter it to the authorities. Now we want to see these folks prosecuted to the full extent of the law, because they have defrauded our organization, and, worse, detracted from our mission of ensuring that citizens in our community participate in the democratic process,” said Claudia Harris, Chairperson of Kansas City ACORN
“Like the FBI, ACORN considers any interference in the voting process to be a very serious matter,” Harris continued. “Across the state our attorneys today reached a settlement with the St. Louis Board of Elections to issue a retraction of the intimidating letter they sent out to thousands of voters we registered. Vigilance is needed to make sure that Scott Leindecker’s St. Louis Board of Elections does not engage in any other dirty tricks to suppress the African American vote.”
ACORN’s voter registration drives are committed to one objective: Registration of eligible low-income and minority citizens who wish to vote and have their votes counted. In the past year, ACORN has helped tens of thousands of Missouri residents register to vote. As part of ACORN’s voter registration program, ACORN has a comprehensive quality control that reviews all application for completeness and accuracy and calls applicants to verify their information. It was this process that identified the individuals who were referred to the Board and Prosecutors.
You overstate the case, I think. Someone has to commit a felony to acquiring the voting roll. He and his accomplices commit a bunch more when they vote all day, each vote carrying a non-trivial risk of detection (if the real person actually votes, or if the poll worker can identify the real voter). And the vote "buyer" just has to commit a fraud or two to bury the phantom voter salaries in their campaign budget.
I could be wrong, but isn't the registered voter roll available upon request?
Seeing as how there are no processes in place to prevent this, it is a minor to nonexistent risk.
You don't GET it.
I know Joe and you ain't Joe.
Answer: Yes I am. You must be thinking of some with a Name like mine.
Then the guy walks Out. The Poll worker is going to stop him? Not likely.
Same sort of answer if the guy has already voted.
Not a chance in Hell that he is going to be caught.
Are you dense or what. Nobody near the campaign is funding this. Get Real.
The whold IDEA of catching the Voter Fraud after the vote is STUPID. What does the guy elected care about some low level flunky getting caught. He's WON. And there is no way to prove HOW they voted or WHO they worked FOR. They would have to be real dumb not to have that covered.
Voter Fraud must be prevented because it cannot be fixed after the fact.
That is what the left does. Who else remembers the Colorado election day manual.
Such debate "tactics" are a waste of my time in responding, so this will be my last response to you on the subject. Everything else I need to defend my point, I have already said.
The point you are clearly missing, is that people have tried to catch this type of fraud after the fact and have come up empty. You are right that it's not neccesarily the greatest incentive, if someone were actively trying to commit such a fraud, to so commiting that fraud - but even with that, nobody's seem to have even tried (in regards to this type of voter fraud - collecting false names and then using those false named to vote repeatedly). The last instance of anything even VAGUELY similar was the Pennsylvania case that Adler cited - but that was absentee ballot fraud, which is a different monster entirely.
Indeed, if this was anything close to widespread it would have been caught in the Washington election challenges - and though the GOP tried desperately to find evidence of fake people (or dead people) voting, all they found were a handful (I believe 5) of ex-felons who were eligible for voter re-instating but failed to correctly undergo the process.
And in the case of Minnesota as mentioned above, you can register the same day as the election and you do not have to show ID, you just have to have someone already registered vouch that you are eligible to vote. There is no need to fraudulently register before hand since hundreds of people can fraudulently register the day of as long as they get one preregistered voter to vouch for them. (see here: http://www.sos.state.mn.us/home/ index.asp?page=12&select_faq_by_faq_cat=2#39 )
For those who do not believe in cases of voter fraud, could you please explain stories like this in Milwaukee. In that case you had around a hundred people who used fake addresses, used fake names, or voted for a dead person. And those are just the ones they caught. Plus there was a discrepency of about 4,600 more votes than voters in that election out of around 277,000 votes cast and thousands of same day registrations that could not later be verified. (see here: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=324933)
It seems to me that same day registration is a bad idea and same day registration without requiring an ID is a particularly bad idea. I am also opposed to electronic voting as even if it is run fairly it still does not leave a paper trail, which makes it look vulnerable to fraud.
(I should note that of those 18, several were acquitted and I couldn't find any evidence where one of those cases went to trial and was found guilty, though I only did a quick search).
Or this voter fraud?
"Unfounded"
So, when you come down to it, the only fraud we have in Wisconsin is the "felony voter" problem. That problem (though many of us oppose the disenfranchisement in the first place) can be rectified by basic (and ACCURATE, hint Florida hint) clerical work. And the fraud wasn't any sort of conspiracy - just a bunch of former felons who either didn't know they couldn't vote or did so anyway - and that was a total of about a hundredth of a percentage of all votes cast.
You should dig a little deeper into Milwaukee and Madison fraud. Your 1 story and 1 opinion article cover the minor issues and problems.
Oh well, at least he isn't trying to oversimplify a complex problem. Sheesh!
You wrote, "Whatever the charges are, there is *no* fraud here, when fraud is defined as illegal votes cast, the only useful definition for which we have."
Your argument is consistent, but you artificially limit the definition so much as to make discussion worthless. Sure, if we define it your way, the example Jonathon provided isn't fraud. But, that doesn't mean much because of the very narrow definition you take - much narrower than the legal use.
As others have pointed out, it is extremely difficult to show fraud of the type you want to talk about. But, the types of fraud we can look at more easily are usually necessary predicates to your fraud. Plus, it is hard to believe that the legal type of fraud would exist without an intent to commit fraud as you define it -- especially when the financial motive is removed.
Further, people have pointed to cases which have proven fraud, and you just dismiss them, rather out of hand.
Your argument is a classic case of definitionally moving the goal so far as to make discussion worthless. You falsely posit that your strict definition of fraud is the only relevant inquiry.
Finally, my posts were in response to your first post. They accurately describe what you tried to do. I rightly noted how you were full of it. Don't get mad that I showed you for the fool you are (or at least were in the post).
Haha, is that an argument? Maybe if you tried reading, like my posts and articles posted, then maybe you wouldn't commit such logical and factual errors.
Your last argument is assuming as true the issue in discussion and then using that assumption to i'm wrong. It doesn't get much worse than that. The only thing laughable is your attempt at argument.
My post, and posts by others, were explaining how your definition is far too narrow for meaningful discussion.
Is that *actually* your argument? And it seems like you're admitting once someone disagrees with you there that I'm wrong?
Okay, then you win. ::chuckles::
God this is tedious. It really isn't that complicated, but I'll spell it out step by step, just for you.
A)Fraud can have many definitions
B)Of course, Voter/Registration Fraud is not automatically fraud as you define it.
C)That said, restricting the focus entirely to your definition of fraud is too narrow.
D)The reason why is because your type of fraud is notoriously difficult to track down.
E) Voter/Registration Fraud while not always indicating actual fraud in the voting booth is a useful metric for looking at actual fraud.
F)Many times Voter/Registration fraud is a prerequisite for actual fraud.
G) By reducing Voter/Registration fraud, we can reduce the incidents/possibilities of actual fraud.
H)Therefore, trying to reduce Voter/Registration fraud is a good goal.
I) This is especially true, because the practices/activities that comprise Voter/Registration fraud have little to no merit on their own.
K) As such, focusing the discussion only on actual fraud as you define it hopelessly misses the issue.
So we should ignore the fact that there are no votes from not-real people, that there is no evidence that there is, and we should assume that there is because....it makes you feel good?
No. Your argument is absurd, rediculous, would fail a high school logic class. If A is only bad because it leads to B, the fact there is no B makes one reconsider how bad A is. My 10 year old brother could understand that logic. And on that note, I am finished with this rediculous children's lesson in "Why things are or are not bad"
You either continually willfully misrepresent my argument or are incapable.
You wrote, "So we should ignore the fact that there are no votes from not-real people, that there is no evidence that there is, and we should assume that there is because....it makes you feel good? "
Articles mentioned above already discuss people who have already been convicted of actual (not just legal) fraud. So, your claim is ridiculous on its face.
Then you wrote, "If A is only bad because it leads to B, the fact there is no B makes one reconsider how bad A is."
Either you are just lying or a complete moron. I'm sorry, but this is getting ridiculous. There is a B, as documented previously.
I really hope you aren't this stupid, but I suspect your biases just completely overwhelm your intellectual faculties.
It's the ones who don't get caught that we need to worry about.
Justin is playing a game by asserting that a person bent on fraud would run a risk in voting under a false name - there is no chance that a pollworker would say "I know Mr. X, and you're not Mr. X" when there is no Mr. X! Voting the phony registrations is safer than voting the deadwood (registrations from real people who died, moved away, or stopped voting).
The Washington case evidences the need to catch the phony registrations before they are voted - in WA, you must prove how the illegal registration was voted - difficult enough in the case of real but ineligible voters, who have an incentive to lie or refuse to testify, but well nigh impossible when you don't know who voted for a dead or fake person.
Oh, and quit the "Republicans do most absentee voter fraud" canard, Justin. It's a smear without supporting evidence.
Nick
After an election, one could prove that a dead person voted. One could prove that a felon voted. But one couldn't prove that an imaginary person voted, or that someone voted for someone else. That can only be caught by requiring IDs.
Incidentally, for those saying, "Show me evidence that there's any kind of fraudulent voting," try this story. It's actual voter fraud (though not of the 'imaginary person' variety).
Don't the phony registrations have to have an address in the polling district? That creates a non-trivial risk of detection - for example when the registration card bounces (if the address doesn't exist), when the real resident gets the card in the mail, or when someone takes over a vacant property.
I didn't argue, nor do I think, that catching vote fraud at the poll is the BEST method, but I'm certain it's more than 0% effective. You have to believe it's 0% to continue believing that fraud is widespread and significant in the absence of any major scheme being uncovered.
I am dense, but that's what protects me from the vast conspiracy thought-waves and slashes of Ockham's razor that many need a tinfoil helmet to combat.
If I turn in bogus cards, I don't need to "get a list", I merely need to keep a list of the names that I used on the bogus cards.