Free Markets, Free People

There is no voter fraud, except when there is voter fraud

Like in the MN Senate race that put Al Franken in office and provided Senate Democrats with their 60th vote.

Byron York provides the short version of the story and what was found subsequently:

In the ’08 campaign, Republican Sen. Norm Coleman was running for re-election against Democrat Al Franken. It was impossibly close; on the morning after the election, after 2.9 million people had voted, Coleman led Franken by 725 votes.

Franken and his Democratic allies dispatched an army of lawyers to challenge the results. After the first canvass, Coleman’s lead was down to 206 votes. That was followed by months of wrangling and litigation. In the end, Franken was declared the winner by 312 votes. He was sworn into office in July 2009, eight months after the election.

During the controversy a conservative group called Minnesota Majority began to look into claims of voter fraud. Comparing criminal records with voting rolls, the group identified 1,099 felons — all ineligible to vote — who had voted in the Franken-Coleman race.

And what has happened since?

And so far, Fund and von Spakovsky report, 177 people have been convicted — not just accused, but convicted — of voting fraudulently in the Senate race. Another 66 are awaiting trial. "The numbers aren’t greater," the authors say, "because the standard for convicting someone of voter fraud in Minnesota is that they must have been both ineligible, and ‘knowingly’ voted unlawfully." The accused can get off by claiming not to have known they did anything wrong.

Still, that’s a total of 243 people either convicted of voter fraud or awaiting trial in an election that was decided by 312 votes.

And, of course, the probability is these felons absolutely knew they were breaking the law and fraudulently voted anyway.

Obviously making a connection between them and Democrats is likely impossible, but it does point to something that the left consistently denies – the existence of voter fraud.

It exists.  Denying it exists, as the left does, only damages their credibility. 

Many times it is the system itself which enables fraud to be carried out.  Incompetence and inefficiency within government agencies charged with supervising voting are as much the problem as the frauds.  For instance:

The Houston-based True the Vote said it has identified 160 counties across 19 states with more registered voters on their rolls than eligible live voters. This chart highlights the 19 states and how they voted in the 2008 election.

Keeping the voter roles current and ensuring all registered voters are eligible would seem to be a primary mission of any state’s voter bureaucracy, wouldn’t it?

Yet what did we recently see – the Obama DoJ go after the state of Florida for doing its job and purging it’s voter roles of the dead and ineligible.  You’d think that they’d encourage such an action because it helps guarantee the integrity of the voting system.

But instead, it tried to stop it.

There is all sorts of fraud.  That like York points out.  That like this case in Miami:

It’s a shady world, as the case of 56-year-old Deisy Cabrera in Hialeah shows.

Cabrera was charged Wednesday with a state felony for allegedly forging an elderly woman’s signature on an absentee ballot, and with two counts of violating a Miami-Dade County ordinance banning the possession of more than two filled-out absentee ballots.

Much of the fraud takes place within the early voting venues.  As the above case illustrates, preying on nursing home residents is only one of many ways fraudulent ballots are cast.

However the Democrats contend that voter ID laws are a means of stopping a problem that doesn’t exist.  They claim there is very little if any fraud to be found in same day voting.  Of course that’s hard to substantiate when voter roles are larger than the pool of eligible voters in many areas and no on is asked to prove who they are. 

The other complaint is that voter ID laws “disenfranchise” minorities and the poor.  Yet Georgia’s experience directly contradicts that claim with minority and overall voter turnout increasing in the elections following the implementation of a voter ID law.

Bottom line: the integrity of the voting system is paramount to instilling confidence in the citizenry that their voices are being truly heard.   If ever there seemed to an issue that should be truly bi-partisan, this would be it.  Yet there are very clear battle-lines drawn with one side claiming fraud doesn’t exist (and they’re factually incorrect about that) and the other saying it does and something should be done about it.

Guess which side I come down on?


Twitter: @McQandO

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

29 Responses to There is no voter fraud, except when there is voter fraud

  • Denying it exists, as the left does, only damages their credibility.

    How do you damage what you ain’t got?  “The Kingdom Of Lies” certainly has no creds with me.
    And I had no doubt that assclown Franken was foisted on the Senate via fraud.  Not ever.

  • The Left doesn’t say there is no fraud—but expresse it as something like .000003 %  (I don’t know if that figure is entirely accurate, but it’s close enough for these purposes), and asks, “Does that approximate amount warrant disenfranchisement of millions of people from the voter roles?”.

    • Bullshit.
      BTW, where’s your receipt for the van rental?

    • The left on this very blog has said there is no voter fraud.

    • “Does that approximate amount warrant disenfranchisement of millions of people from the voter roles?”.
      you’re SURE that there isn’t much fraud and you’re CERTAIN that it will amount to disenfranchisement of MILLIONS of people and that makes you tolerant, and free thinking and liberal….
      But we’re fascists if we claim there IS vote fraud, and valid id requirements won’t disenfranchise millions.

      • Franken got elected because of fraud, didn’t that disenfranchise the millions who voted for Coleman? Ahhhh, who cares about them anyway, they voted for the Republican so they don’t count right?

    • Eff you. Explain to me again who gets disenfranchised and how? I love hearing the left explain over and over how minorities are too pathetic or stupid to get ID. My right to a fair election process trumps your right to have no ID every single time.

    • The Left doesn’t say there is no fraud—but expresse it as something like .000003 %  (I don’t know if that figure is entirely accurate, but it’s close enough for these purposes),

      ACORN does that in one afternoon.
      That percentage might be the accidentals, but the left’s DELIBERATE rate is more like 5-10%.

  • “Guess which side I come down on?”

    Um, the side that helps the GOP?

    Democrats have never said there is no voter fraud, they have said that there is virtually no voter fraud cases where a person walks in to a poll and pretends to be someone else. That is a felony with a potential 5 year sentence for ONE vote. It’s SO much easier to fake absentee ballots that this is where most voter fraud takes place.

    The examples you have provided, like so many other examples put out to advance the cause of voter ID laws, would not have been affected by voter ID laws.

    As for convicted felons voting, I have a problem with permanently rescinding a person’s right to vote if they have served their sentence. I have no problem restricting their voting rights while in prison or while still on probation. But in any case, these felons could clearly have shown their OWN ID and been able to vote.

    The problem people have with voter purges are the errors. In Florida in 2000, thousands of people with names similar to that of felons were purged from the voter rolls.

    Get it right and honest people will have problem with it.

    • Still waiting for ANY support…

    • Again, without checking ID there is NO WAY to credibly claim there is no fraud at polls that don’t demand it. And with voter ID checks, there’s NO WAY to do it (unless the person has multiple IDs and multiple registrations, which is unlikely). Which method gives the process more integrity and trust?

    • I’ll bet I can be YOU for weeks on end if no one ever asks for my ID Cap.  Send me a credit card number and let’s experiment…..

    • Hey, question, these thousands of people with ‘similar’ names – how did that work exactly?  You know, they purged ALL Robert W. Smith’s from the voting roles because ONE Robert W. Smith was a felon?  We talking a thousand?  2 thousand?  10,000 thousand?  a HUNDRED thousand!   How many ‘thousands’.  So much fun when we use big numbers isn’t it?
      And out of a total voting population of how many were these ‘thousands’ disenfranchised, and how was that different from any normal statistical hiccup and are we straining at gnats so we can swallow camels here?
      Explain how that actually worked, you know, instead of just, sort of saying it happened way back there in time, a long time ago, back in 2000, and we should believe you because, uh, we should.  I love it when we can say “thousands” and “similar” and those sorts of things without you know, using any real numbers or substantiation.

    • Democrats enjoy voter fraud. They want illegals, criminals, and ignorant people voting.

    • Um, the side that helps the GOP?

      Brick-brained as ever, huh?
      Why anyone wastes two seconds on your adolescent tripe is amazing.

  • Personally, I don’t think voter fraud is an unintended consequence of lax registration and ID laws.  I think it’s an intended consequence of lax laws because it disproportionately benefits the Left.

    • Ding, ding, ding…!!!  Winner!!!

    • Concur.
      I think it’s deliberate for three reasons:
      1) If they win, they get to do the <cough…cough> investigation. Further, the populace is too short-attention-spanned to grasp what happened (Hey, elections come in the middle of football season)!
      2) If they lose, the Repubs are to gutless to jack them up and throw hundreds in jail.
      3) They know they’re positions are untenable and dying, so they have no other alternative.

    • I seems that it has never occurred to these stewarts of legalese that these same “poor and disenfranchised” folks just might be less “poor and disenfranchised” if they actually had a valid photo ID … but we couldn’t have something like that.

      Oh, I say and I say it again, ya been had! Ya been took! Ya been hoodwinked! Bamboozled! Led astray! Run amok!

  • It’s axiomatic that if where there are inner cities there is voter fraud.
    But there’s plenty of it in the not so inner cities as well.

  • The Houston-based True the Vote said it has identified 160 counties across 19 states with more registered voters on their rolls than eligible live voters. This chart highlights the 19 states and how they voted in the 2008 election.

    In the 2000 election, that was the case over 168 counties and 116 of those were vote COUNTS, not just registrations.
    In Erb’s state of Maine, it was for the entire state.
    Ya’ know, this BS is all so transparent…

    • This is like asking the guards who are sleeping in the gatehouse how many people have entered the city while they weren’t on duty.

  • In a 6-to-3 ruling in one of the most awaited election-law cases in years, the court rejected arguments that Indiana’s law imposes unjustified burdens on people who are old, poor or members of minority groups and less likely to have driver’s licenses or other acceptable forms of identification. Because Indiana’s law is considered the strictest in the country, similar laws in the other 20 or so states that have photo-identification rules would appear to have a good chance of surviving scrutiny.
    The ruling, coming just eight days before the Indiana primary and at the height of a presidential election campaign, upheld rulings by a Federal District Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which had thrown out challenges to the 2005 law.
    Justice John Paul Stevens, who announced the judgment of the court and wrote an opinion in which Chief John G. Roberts Jr. and Anthony M. Kennedy joined, alluded to — and brushed aside — complaints that the law benefits Republicans and works against Democrats, whose ranks are more likely to include poor people or those in minority groups.
    The justifications for the law “should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators,” Justice Stevens wrote.
    Justice Stevens and the two court members who joined him found that the Democrats and civil rights groups who attacked the law, seeking a declaration that it was unconstitutional on its face, had failed to meet the heavy burden required for such a “facial challenge” to prevail.

    Photo ID is constitutional. No amount of hand waving is going to change that.
    It just disgusts me that these Democrats would attempt to turn back a completely constitutional method to insure the validity of everybody’s vote.  They just make me want to puke in their faces.

    • In the immortal words of the great philosopher, Rocky Balboa…

      Go fer it…

    • Really.
      Well, all I can say at this point is…..

  • Good grief!