Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

October 12, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

HELPING AMERICA VOTE (FOR THE RIGHT PARTY)....The U.S. Election Assistance Commission is an administrative body created in 2002 as part of the Help America Vote Act. Recently they commissioned a study of voter fraud:

The bipartisan report by two consultants to the election commission casts doubt on the problem those laws are intended to address. There is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling-place fraud, or at least much less than is claimed, including voter impersonation, dead' voters, non-citizen voting and felon voters, the report says.

The report, prepared by Tova Wang, an elections expert at the Century Foundation think tank, and Job Serebrov, an Arkansas attorney, says most fraud occurs in the absentee ballot process, such as through coercion or forgery.

That makes sense. Polling place fraud is difficult and risky, and that makes it rare. Absentee ballot fraud, by contrast, is pretty simple to pull off.

So if you want to combat voter fraud, you should put your biggest effort in the place where most fraud occurs, right? And that would be absentee voting.

But of course, there's another consideration: putting restrictions on voting in polling places primarily reduces voter turnout among Democrats. Conversely, restrictions on voting by absentee ballot primarily reduces voter turnout among Republicans.

That's a tough decision, isn't it? Do the right thing, or do the thing that hurts Democratic turnout? Hmmm. What do you think happened in this case? Would it help if I told you that this report was written four months ago and that the Republican chairman of the EAC immediately decided not to release it?

Via Mark Kleiman.

Kevin Drum 2:37 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (58)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

I believe we have now arrived at a place where it is possible to predetermine the outcome of every bit of study done by the Federal government.

So we can replace the entire GOP machine with a fairly simple computer program.

I volunteer. It will be a faithful representation of the GOP thought process. You can trust me. Really.

Posted by: craigie on October 12, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

craigie >"...So we can replace the entire GOP machine with a fairly simple computer program..."

Been there done that, see Al, Charlie, American Squawker, Thomas1, etc

still need someone to move the money around behind the curtain tho, see Delay, Ney, Pombo, Abramhoff etc

"...economics runs around trying to figure out how people rationalized what they just did." - Stirling Newberry

Posted by: daCascadian on October 12, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

Anything to keep your baby-killing grave-robbing nuke-givers out of office!

Posted by: Al's Mommy on October 12, 2006 at 2:50 PM | PERMALINK

Polling by both methods is easy to police. Require photo ID to obtain both types of ballots.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on October 12, 2006 at 2:52 PM | PERMALINK

I saw this copy of USAToday yesterday. The headline, "Report skeptical of fraud at polls", was above the fold, the rest of the article below it.


You'd think we were all just foolish to worry about election fraud.

Posted by: cld on October 12, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

I think our biggest problem is "Vote by MALE". :-)

Posted by: Robert on October 12, 2006 at 2:59 PM | PERMALINK

Swiftboating, Diebold, voter supression.

We have to be prepared. Losing isn't an option.

Posted by: jimmy on October 12, 2006 at 3:03 PM | PERMALINK

I think we should take the offensive by pointing out to the religious nut voters that a national voter ID is a step down the path to a required national ID and they believe that ultimately leads to the Mark of the Beast. "Oooooh!" The end times are upon us. ;-}

Posted by: Stuart on October 12, 2006 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

In the name of eliminating all fraud from our election process, I'm all in favor of getting rid of all forms of absentee voting as well as voting by mail and any other forms of non-in person voting. If you can't get to your polling station on the day of the election for whatever reason, then you don't get to vote.

Posted by: Chicounsel on October 12, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

let's make a deal:

A. require photo ID at the polls.
B. eliminate absentee ballots.

Posted by: Nathan on October 12, 2006 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

If you can't get to your polling station on the day of the election for whatever reason, then you don't get to vote.

In Los Angeles, the voting has already started. There are 17 early voting locations, that let you vote whenever you want, up to election day.

Posted by: craigie on October 12, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

The there are flaws in the polling methodology. The EAC chairman didn't feel he should act on inadequate science. Maybe in another 20 years...

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on October 12, 2006 at 3:22 PM | PERMALINK

In the name of eliminating all fraud from our election process, I'm all in favor of getting rid of all forms of absentee voting as well as voting by mail and any other forms of non-in person voting. If you can't get to your polling station on the day of the election for whatever reason, then you don't get to vote.

Why do you hate America's Soldiers?

Posted by: klyde on October 12, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

Why do you hate America's Soldiers?

Posted by: klyde on October 12, 2006 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

D'oh!! Forgot about them. Obviously, their right to vote must be preserved, so the elimination of absentee voting would not apply to the armed forces. But I highly doubt that the military would be a potential source of voter fraud as opposed to the civilian world.

In Los Angeles, the voting has already started. There are 17 early voting locations, that let you vote whenever you want, up to election day.

Posted by: craigie on October 12, 2006 at 3:20 PM | PERMALINK

I would prefer this to absentee voting or by mail or online. At least here, an actual person is given the ballot by persons who have determined that the person is legally registered to vote. Have them dip their finger in ink after they are done voting and thank them for doing their civic duty.

Posted by: Chicounsel on October 12, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

let's make a deal:

A. require photo ID at the polls.
B. eliminate absentee ballots.

Would someone get this dopey kid out of here?

How about "one person, one vote?"

What's so fucking hard about that?

Posted by: Pale Rider on October 12, 2006 at 4:06 PM | PERMALINK

Chicounsel >"...If you can't get to your polling station on the day of the election for whatever reason, then you don't get to vote."

If "We the people..." go down that road there has to be written in the law, the violation of which is a Felony with mandatory hard time, that all resources for voting must be distributed according to requirements for equal access to the polling equipment; no more placing more machines/resources in ReThuglican areas & shorting them in Democratic areas (see Florida, Ohio etc) or visa versa

"The future will be a struggle between huge competing systems of psychopathology." - J. G. Ballard

Posted by: daCascadian on October 12, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

Georgia's been trying to pass a photo ID requirement for a while now, and it's been knocked down a few times in court because of Voting Rights Act violation. Requiring photo ID sounds all well and good, but not everyone has one, and it costs money to get one, it's a lot easier to them in some places than in others, and people without them fall overwhelmingly into Democratic groups.

For instance, there just happened to be entire counties in Georgia where you couldn't get a gov't-issued ID, and I'm sure you'd be shocked to hear that they were black-majority counties.

Posted by: Dan-o on October 12, 2006 at 4:10 PM | PERMALINK

we can replace the entire GOP machine with a fairly simple computer program.

Hell, judging by the trolls here, that's already happened.

Posted by: Gregory on October 12, 2006 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

D'oh!! Forgot about them. Obviously, their right to vote must be preserved, so the elimination of absentee voting would not apply to the armed forces.

So you're only in favor of disenfranchising US citizens working abroad. Or out of state, for that matter. Gotcha.

Posted by: Gregory on October 12, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK
Georgia's been trying to pass a photo ID requirement for a while now, and it's been knocked down a few times in court because of Voting Rights Act violation.

I thought, from the media accounts I'd seen, that different versions of it have been struck down as 14th Amendment Due Process violations and as a 24th Amendment (Poll Tax) violations. But, yeah, it keeps getting slapped around by the courts (and not just the federal courts, either, the Georgia state courts have been slapping it down, as well.)

Posted by: cmdicely on October 12, 2006 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

Chicounsel, 1930 version: "If you can't pay your poll tax on the day of the election for whatever reason, then you don't get to vote."

Posted by: Gregory on October 12, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

Chicocounsel,

Multi-day voting could serve as method of doing what you want, but requiring the voter to turn the absentee vote in person would serve the same purpose.

Posted by: Yancey Ward on October 12, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK
In the name of eliminating all fraud from our election process, I'm all in favor of getting rid of all forms of absentee voting as well as voting by mail and any other forms of non-in person voting.

Sure. If you're suffering a physical handicap that makes it problematic for you to get to a polling place—one of the major original reasons for absentee voting—then screw you, you don't deserve any say in government. Same if you need to be away from your place of residence during early November for work or otherwise.

Brilliant!

Posted by: cmdicely on October 12, 2006 at 4:25 PM | PERMALINK

On October 4th the Missouri Voter Disenfranchisement Act of 2006 was argued before the state supreme court after being found unconstitutional by Cole County Judge Richard Callahan. The state immediately stopped issuing the ID cards that would be acceptable ID. The Publicans appealed, and the supreme court is still deliberating the matter.

My husband and I requested absentee ballots because all voting in our county is now on Diebold machines. I have marked my ballot in every race except those for supreme court judges, waiting to see how they rule.

Barbara Boxer sponsored legislation that would mandate a paper ballot option in every polling place in America, and it was shot down by the Publicans (big surprise). I hope she gets the chance to try again in the future, with a different Senate make-up.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 12, 2006 at 4:35 PM | PERMALINK

I think "Diebold" is already a synonym for "tin hat" in our vocabulary.

of course, I can remember the days (i.e. until 2004) when it was Democrats that were demanding that every county install electronic voting machines.

Posted by: Nathan on October 12, 2006 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

pale rider wrote:

How about "one person, one vote?"

What's so fucking hard about that?
______________

Nothing at all. That is, so long as "one person" means one citizen of legal age without a legal injunction against voting. Should be nothing hard about that at all.

Posted by: Trashhauler on October 12, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

Hey, Kevin, when do we get a Vitual Kevin to talk to? ^-^

http://blog.oddcast.com/2006/10/why_not_use_vid.html

Posted by: Crissa on October 12, 2006 at 4:57 PM | PERMALINK

I don't plan to ever get ill or become handicapped. Nor have I ever taken a business or personal trip, or, indeed, traveled more than 20 miles from my home (there are scary brown people and non-English speakers out there!), so I don't see any problem with requiring everyone else to get to the polls on a certain day.

Posted by: Underbright Republican Lawyer on October 12, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, not quite correct that absentee vote fraud greatly favors the GOP. Urban, normally Democratic, machine politics have done this for generations.

Posted by: SocraticGadfly on October 12, 2006 at 4:59 PM | PERMALINK

In Los Angeles, the voting has already started. There are 17 early voting locations, that let you vote whenever you want, up to election day.

Personally, I love this. When I was working sixteen hour days across town, across the bridge, or whatever, there were a couple polling days I left town before the polls opened and arived home after they closed. It sucked. And when you're working temp or similar, you have no control, no days off - and heck, very few places give people time off to vote.

My spouse's current place gives her an hour (or more) to take off of work and make sure she gets to her polling place. This plus early/expanded polling places makes voting possible for the busy working American.

But anyhow... Where's the work on verifying Absentee votes?

Posted by: Crissa on October 12, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

But I highly doubt that the military would be a potential source of voter fraud as opposed to the civilian world.

...Actually... It's been a huge source. Things like Republican offices handling ballots before and after they've been sent out to US troops, putting names on the list that weren't, putting votes in the mouths of troops that never got a chance.

Because of this, the number of soldiers failing to vote don't fall squarely in the Republican column, despite Republicans being the majority in the Armed forces.

The party shouldn't be handing out the votes.

Posted by: Crissa on October 12, 2006 at 5:11 PM | PERMALINK

Arrggghhh! Not everyone in uniform is a republican!!! The loyalty is to the Constitution, not to any political party. I have seen a lot of people in pickle suits and strata blue asking for the democratic ballot during the primary. The military is a cross section of America. No party has a lock on the loyalty of the troops in uniform.

Posted by: Global Citizen on October 12, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

One interesting thing about the story is that it isn't clear what methodology the study used to assess the degree of impact various types of fraud had.

For example, did the study simply looked at aggregate example of fraud across the U.S. (i.e. across the U.S. there are more cases of absentee ballot fraud than non-citizen/felon voting fraud)? It may well be that this is true in terms of net numbers but if the cases of non-citizen/felon voting fraud are more focused (in say Ohio) then they would have a more meaningful impact than the more frequent but more dispersed cases of absentee ballot fraud.

Posted by: Hacksaw on October 12, 2006 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK

I'm fine with the notion of all voting being required to be in person. With the following reservations:

1. The military is obviously exempt.

2. All people with permanent residence, outside the country who are unable to vote must be able to withhold their taxes as they are being denied representation.

3. Voting must occur on one or both days of a weekend.

Cheers,

Alan Tomlinson

Posted by: Alan Tomlinson on October 12, 2006 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK

Remember when I mentioned the fact that Chris Wallace is a Democrat. It was just after the Bill Clinton kerfuffle, iirc.

Here's the proof from the liberal Washington Post.

I'll accept appropriate apologies below. Thanks.

Posted by: Inigo Montoya on October 12, 2006 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

Dogs not descended from wolves,


http://darrennaish.blogspot.com/2006/10/controversial-origins-of-domestic-dog.html


(Wolves=authoritarian personality disorder up the wazoo, dogs=more like us).

Posted by: cld on October 12, 2006 at 5:48 PM | PERMALINK

Crissa wrote (about fraud in military ballots):

...Actually... It's been a huge source. Things like Republican offices handling ballots before and after they've been sent out to US troops, putting names on the list that weren't, putting votes in the mouths of troops that never got a chance.
_______________

What's the definition of "huge?" Plus, the only recurring problem with military ballots seems to be the habit of disallowing them due to lack of postage, late timing, bad addresses, or lack of signatures.

Where are the examples of anyone mishandling properly completed ballots?

Posted by: Trashhauler on October 12, 2006 at 5:52 PM | PERMALINK

Voting fraud reality check.

I notice a lot of talk on polling place fraud, or absentee ballot fraud. Not much about registration fraud, which has been widespread.

Posted by: bart on October 12, 2006 at 5:54 PM | PERMALINK

Is there any evidence at all that most absentee ballots are cast by Republicans? There has been a strong Democratic absentee-ballot voting drive for some time now.

Posted by: harry on October 12, 2006 at 6:01 PM | PERMALINK

Only democrats are dishonest, except for the Republicans who have been caught. All guilty republicans have been exposed. Why check our absentee ballots?

Posted by: shorter Al on October 12, 2006 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

All people with permanent residence, outside the country who are unable to vote must be able to withhold their taxes as they are being denied representation.

Uh, no.

First of all, residing permanently outside the US does not restrict your right to vote (at least in Federal elections. Local elections are usually different).

That's because voting is a right that acrues to citizenship, not geographic position.

Second, while the US is the only country in the world that taxes its citizens on their worldwide income, most citizens living abroad, and being paid in the local currency, are able to deduct the taxes they pay locally from the taxes they would owe Uncle Sam, with the result that they end up not owing any US taxes. So in short, it's not an issue.

Posted by: craigie on October 12, 2006 at 6:13 PM | PERMALINK

Meanwhile, more good news

Posted by: craigie on October 12, 2006 at 6:18 PM | PERMALINK

I have no problem requiring photo identification for voting, as long as said ID is provided free of charge to all U.S. citizens.

No problem.

Posted by: Ringo on October 12, 2006 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

I have no problem requiring photo identification for voting, as long as said ID is provided free of charge to all U.S. citizens.

Works for me. This should still be a state issue, though, not a Federal one.

Posted by: harry on October 12, 2006 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK

putting restrictions on voting in polling places primarily reduces voter turnout among Democrats

Evidence, please!

Posted by: Al on October 12, 2006 at 6:41 PM | PERMALINK

Craigie wrote:

"First of all, residing permanently outside the US does not restrict your right to vote (at least in Federal elections. Local elections are usually different)."

in response to:

"All people with permanent residence, outside the country who are unable to vote must be able to withhold their taxes as they are being denied representation."

I was suggesting this as the hypothetical solution to those who felt that if one cannot appear at the polls then one forfeits the right to vote. I have my absentee ballot here and can even vote on local candidates. Only the Secretary of State knows why since I know not who these people are.

Cheers,

Alan Tomlinson

Posted by: Alan Tomlinson on October 12, 2006 at 7:53 PM | PERMALINK

Obviously, their right to vote must be preserved, so the elimination of absentee voting would not apply to the armed forces. But I highly doubt that the military would be a potential source of voter fraud as opposed to the civilian world.

You're kidding, right? Do some research on the fraud that took place in 2000 in FL wrt military ballots.

What is it with wingnut deification of the military, anyway?

Posted by: Disputo on October 12, 2006 at 8:06 PM | PERMALINK

Polling place fraud is difficult and risky

Huh? In a recent primary election, I walked in, gave a name and address (which I could have gotten off a mailbox), and received a ballot. I happened to give them my own name and address, but it sure would have been easy to give them a different one....and do that multiple times in different precincts.

Posted by: LR on October 12, 2006 at 8:29 PM | PERMALINK

LR wrote: In a recent primary election, I walked in, gave a name and address (which I could have gotten off a mailbox), and received a ballot. I happened to give them my own name and address, but it sure would have been easy to give them a different one....and do that multiple times in different precincts.

And then what happens when the person whose vote was usurped shows up to vote later? That's right, election officials track you down and drag your ass to jail. Just saying it sounds simple, but in practice not so much.

Posted by: bigcat on October 12, 2006 at 8:57 PM | PERMALINK

Would y'all like some help from Oz on how to run elections that involve the whole population?

1. Have a national electoral commission (public service, not politically appointed) that sets the rules and monitors the process. They also define the electorate boundaries, with virtually zero political input

2. Every citizen registers at 18 or when granted citizenship.

3. Voting is conducted on non-working day (Saturday in our case, but you could surely make the first Tuesday in November a public holiday to allow everyone to vote. If it helps, we've already made it a public holiday for the Melbourne Cup - as good an excuse as any)

4. Paper ballots

5. Polling booths everywhere, and you can vote at any polling booth for any electorate

6. Roaming polling booths for outback electorates to make sure everyone gets to vote

7. Polling booths set up at every military base/outpost (and I think warship, too) anywhere we've got troops

8. Polling booths at every embassy and most consuls

9. Every voter's address is listed at the electorate's polling booth. You say who you are, are asked if you've already voted, and on giving the correct answer (No) are handed a ballot. Your name is crossed off the computerised register that later gets scanned and all entries crosschecked

10. Once you've been given the ballot, you can do what you want with it (it's really only compulsory here to attend the polling booth. Actual voting is essentially optional)

11. The electoral commission tallies all of the votes (paper based here) with "scrutineers" from each of the political parties observing. They can challenge the validity of a vote, but it's up to the EC staff (who are volunteers, but trained) to adjudicate. There's a process for all objections to be resolved.

12. Automatic recounts (as many as needed)at each booth, and all tallies sent through the electorate/state/national tally rooms, straight to our TVs

With all that, and throwing in preferential voting, it is rare for more than a few seats to not be finalised by the next morning.

And all that with all but zero fraud, and maybe 6 or 7 percent of eligible voters not voting.

Posted by: BrettC on October 12, 2006 at 10:01 PM | PERMALINK

BrettC: Roaming polling booths for outback electorates to make sure everyone gets to vote

Won't work - we don't have an outback.

Posted by: alex on October 12, 2006 at 10:13 PM | PERMALINK

Alex:

Won't work - we don't have an outback.

OK, so you guys have got indoor plumbing! Big deal.

Posted by: BrettC on October 12, 2006 at 10:37 PM | PERMALINK

I am as Democratic as they come. I think the future of our nation depends on our party coming back into power.

But I think the future of our nation depends even more on fair and clean elections. That happens to favor Dems-- the last two elections, I think, were corrupted by Republican election fraud-- but even if it favored the other side, I'd say it's far more important to have real elections with fairness and honesty than any one side winning. I accepted Ronald Reagan as president because the majority of voters voted for him. I would have accepted George Bush if I had any certainty that the same was true (Well, we know it wasn't in 2000).

It is absurd that we're supposedly trying to bring democracy to the Mideast and we aren't sure we have free and fair elections here at home.

Posted by: oops on October 12, 2006 at 11:30 PM | PERMALINK

Chicocounsel,
If you want to ban absentee voting then you can just pay for the damned $2500 plane ticket and another $500 for a substitute to teach my classes while I'm voting.
Idiot.

Posted by: joe on October 12, 2006 at 11:35 PM | PERMALINK

There are two misconceptions floating around this conversation.

1. Absentee voting is necessarily more prone to fraud.

Oregon has run its entire election system by mail since 1998. It is one of only two states where every single signature (required on the "security envelope" in which ballots are returned) is checked against the signature on the voter registration card. Oregon's Vote By Mail elections have been essentially "fraud free" - the words of Oregon elections officials of both parties, not me.

Oregon's requirement that ballots mailed to voters at their registered address not be forwarded by the postal service has also meant that Oregon's voter rolls are the cleanest and most accurate in the country.

This is all a matter of procedure and execution folks.

Also, Vote By Mail is extraordinarily popular with voters (81% preferred it in a 2003 study by Priscilla Southwell U. Oregon.) Washington and California are the other two states that have allowed voters to register as "permanent, no-excuse absentee" - meaning you register absentee once, and receive a ballot by mail in all subsequent elections until you move - and the response by voters has been staggering.

In Washington, so many people chose this option that as of this year, 34 of 39 counties have switched entirely to Vote By Mail elections. In California, which began allowing permanent absentee registration in 2001, almost half of all ballots cast in the state this November will come from absentee voters.

2. Absentee voting skews Republican genetically. The truth is that voters who receive their ballots at home are more likely to actually vote, and so in states that allow no-excuse absentee registration (24 states right now, I believe) the Republican party, candidates, and Republican-related groups have spent big money to get their folks to request absentee ballots.

This is changing as progressives and Dems have discovered the "magic" of increased turnout through Vote By Mail.

In fact, it could be argued that Dems, whose base is more diverse and therefore notoriously more difficult to turn out, has more to gain through expanded absentee voting, as the two-week "voting period" when ballots are in the hands of voters allows for the kind of individual outreach and micro-targeted GOTV that is most persuasive in getting low-propensity voters to cast a ballot.

"Voter Fraud" is actually quite rare and it's one-vote-at-a-time nature makes it a remarkably inefficient - and risky - way to impact an election. Contrast that with the ability to change vote totals on even a single voting machine in a key district. Putting ballots into people's hands, in their own homes, is a terrific way to increase participation (thereby making retail vote fraud even less effective) by personally engaging people in the process. This is especially true of folks who work multiple hourly wage jobs or who have trouble securing or affording child care.

Absentee voting, under well-designed procedural guidelines such as we have here in Oregon, is secure, transparent, and highly participatory. And it leaves an unimpeachable paper trail. Just the kind of system that progressives ought to love.

Posted by: ajsmith on October 13, 2006 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

"3. Voting must occur on one or both days of a weekend."

Some people actually DO work on weekends, you know.

Multi-day voting would help, as would returning to the old absentee ballot rules that required you to have a good reason to get one -- something that prevented you from getting to the polls.

And there should be a prohibition on political parties handling absentee ballots.

Posted by: Cal Gal on October 13, 2006 at 2:37 PM | PERMALINK

I noted that most of the rightist shills tried to confuse this finding with the idea that their efforts to *prevent* people from voting, or fiddle the voting-machine results, didn't really happen.

Posted by: Neil' on October 14, 2006 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK

quoted:
LR wrote: In a recent primary election, I walked in, gave a name and address (which I could have gotten off a mailbox), and received a ballot. I happened to give them my own name and address, but it sure would have been easy to give them a different one....and do that multiple times in different precincts.

And then what happens when the person whose vote was usurped shows up to vote later? That's right, election officials track you down and drag your ass to jail. Just saying it sounds simple, but in practice not so much.
Posted by: bigcat on October 12, 2006 at 8:57 PM

Excuse me, but if someone posed as me, how would they even know who it was? Ummm, it's not as if they wrote down a different name and address as alternate...

Posted by: Neil' on October 14, 2006 at 1:18 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly