I suspect there is more voter fraud by Republicans who vote at home and vote absentee at their second residence in another state than all the Indian tribes in South Dakota perpetrate in their wildest dreams.

Ah, but "proof" by anecdote is just ever so much more satisfying, isn't it?

Gene: Yes, you're right. Fraud in absentee balloting is more prevalent than fraud at polling places. But absentee ballots are used predominantly by white, well-off, suburban voters. For some reason, the GOP doesn't seem to mind fraud among that demographic. I wonder why?

Since I live in Washington State, I followed the recount in the governor's race there very closely. There was simply nothing there. The Republican Party sued in a heavily Republican county in front of a hand-picked Republican judge and they got their asses handed to them because there was simply no evidence that anything organized or untoward had occurred. If I recall correctly, the result of the multi-million dollar lawsuit was that the vote total changed by just four votes.

Both McKay and the local FBI office investigated the allegations. In every case, they found the same thing that the judge found -- there just wasn't anything there. There was no case to bring because there was no evidence of any organized wrongdoing -- just the usual haphazard chaos of any statewide election process. Had the election swung the other way, McKay would likely have been a federal judge by now, and deservedly so.

In any case, all you have to know about the Republican Party's interest in fair elections is their reaction to electronic voting systems, none of which are very secure and all of which are vulnerable to error and fraud, far more so than any phantom or double voters. The reaction of the Republican Congress and the Republican administration? "Ho-hum."

Voter fraud put the usurper-in-chief in the White House, but this was voter-fraud perpetrated by the Florida Secretary of State to prevent legitimate voters from voting at all.

Gene: Yes, you're right. Fraud in absentee balloting is more prevalent than fraud at polling places. But absentee ballots are used predominantly by white, well-off, suburban voters. For some reason, the GOP doesn't seem to mind fraud among that demographic. I wonder why?

As well as fraud in military overseas ballots, which was pursued by Gore in 2000 until the PR costs of "disenfranchising servicemen" (from voting twice and mailing ballots after the election) became too great.

"As well as fraud in military overseas ballots, which was pursued by Gore in 2000 until the PR costs of 'disenfranchising servicemen' (from voting twice and mailing ballots after the election) became too great."

Actually, if I recall correctly, the Bush campaign complained just as loudly about overseas ballots but, oddly enough, only in counties that were heavily Democratic. Since this didn't fit the story that the media wanted to tell, it didn't get told, other than an article well after the fact in, I think, Salon.

Ugh. I know this is troll feeding, but here goes: AH, as Kevin said, there is next to no evidence that voter fraud is a widespread problem. If anything, it's a problem among the more GOP-inclined absentee voters. The whole thing is a canard. If someone really wanted to vote illegally, how tough do you think it is to get a forged driver's license? It just doesn't happen that way. The ONLY reason people like you are demanding people jump through these frivolous hoops to vote (even after they're legally registered and the state/county has determined that they are in fact qualified and put them on the voter rolls) is that you know it poses a particular burden to the elderly, poor and minorities who support Democrats. It's not just the cost of getting photo ID's that's a problem either -- there are time, language, distance and other barriers that sometimes keep people from being able to easily apply for these kinds of documents. Just because you lack transportation, or can't read or write well doesn't mean you can't vote (check the Voting Rights Act of 1965 if you need more clarification on that).

Isn't this the same GOP who kept insisting that there was no such thing as voter fraud and Dem's kept losing because they were bereft of ideas.

Now the GOP loses and it had to be because of voter fraud.

Sad. So sad.

Losers.

While it is hard to defend the rights of felons, it is not the case that in all states felons cannot vote.

What is the case is that for political purposes it is easy to mistakenly remove felons from voting lists that should not have been removed or to mistakenly identify people as felons that are not felons, or to just remove people that should not have been removed, and to challenge people that should not be challenged.

And one can look at the political benefits of criminalizing everything under the sun to help ensure that few people of any class can vote and that people in the underclass cannot vote.

Photo ID does nothing for that.

Amazing how much Republicans hate a democracy.

"In any case, all you have to know about the Republican Party's interest in fair elections is their reaction to electronic voting systems, none of which are very secure and all of which are vulnerable to error and fraud, far more so than any phantom or double voters. The reaction of the Republican Congress and the Republican administration? "Ho-hum."" Posted by: PaulB on March 29, 2007 at 1:08 AM

Yep, that and the idea that the person overseeing the election fairness in both of the eventual decisive States in 2000 and 2004 also being the chair of that State's elect Bush/Cheney committees. I mean really, that is not just the appearance of conflict of interest, it is the very definition of it! When one job places election neutrality and fairness to all candidates as its primary responsibility and the other is to do all that one can to elect their candidate how the hell is that *NOT* a direct inherent conflict of interest?!!? Yet that is exactly what happened with both Katherine Harris and Ken Blackwell and that seemed to whiz by without much comment at all. Combined with PaulB's excellent observation about GOP comfort with near total lack of both soft and hard ware security and easily rigged untraceably electronic voting machines, made coincidentally by GOP friends of theirs, it is clear what the GOP's true concerns about election fraud really are. Hmmmm, whatever could it be....

Voting fraud, along with all that noise about electronic voting machines, vanished as an issue in the press and elsewhere about three minutes after the Democrats took the House and Senate back. Not needed any more.

Pretty much by definition, any vote for a Democrat must be fraud - is that right?

The vote supression aspect of this seems to be exactly why Wilson and Domenici were pushing Inglesias prior to last November's elections...

They didn't think anyone would be convicted. They didn't care about that. They wasn't enough time to do much except create a stink about Democrat voter fraud to bring out the base and to keep some Democrats away from the polls.

And that's all they wanted. After the election the whole thing could go away for all they cared.

re snickersnacks comment: new Democratic secty of state Debra Bowen in California is still interested in voting integrity.

Tougher standards could end e-voting
California machine makers say they can't be fixed before February primary
By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER
http://www.insidebayarea.com/ci_5537748?source=rss

I find AH as annoying as everyone else, but please don't respoind with these "don't feed the trolls" remarks like you see on so many right wing blogs. Someone's not a troll just because you don't agree with what they're saying. AH comments regularly and returns to counter arguments that are made against his points, and frequently makes arguments that aren't ad hominem attcks. These are hardly the hallmarks of a troll. I can't believe I'm defending him, but I think a comments section is more interesting and informative when people from both sides are commenting. And as someone who comments on right wing sitesa a lot, it's pretty easy to be snarky when 90 percent of the commenters are telling you to go to hell. It's pretty frustrating when you present an argument, and the only respnses are "the trolls are out today."

Since AH's comment reflected the arguments a lot of Republicans are making, and were certainly reasonably stated, a reasonable response is in order. The voting laws should be designed to make it as easy as possible for eleigible voters to vote. The burden of obtaining a photo ID is not justified by the dangers of voter fraud. Simply saying that poor voters can receive free IDs isn't enough. Poor people get pretty tired of being treated like poor people. Having to apply for assistance to get a photo ID simply so you can vote is an unecessary burden, and who knows how cumbersome a process the Republicans can make it if they really put their minds to it? Besides, if it can really cost $200 for a photo ID, there's plent of people who don't qualify for public assistance who would find that too burdensome. The bottom line is, this is a solution in search of a problem. I have yet to see the Republicans make a convincing argument that voter fraud is a significant problem.

I think there has been much more evidence that suppressing the vote has skewed more elections than ineligible voters casting ballots.

Indeed, following the 2000 election in Florida, Bush attorneys argued that military ballots facing the same disqualifiers (late postmark, bad registration) should be accepted in conservative counties in the Panhandle and the north and rejected in Broward County where military recruits were more likely to be minorities. This was covered in the New York Times--different attornies given different instructions depending on how they expected the military ballots to go. They had no problem disenfranchising, excuse me, enforcing strict standards on military ballots they predicted statistically to support Al Gore while arguing for patriotic leeway on ballots from Bush country.

Jonas says "There is no evidence of widespread voter fraud."

But a recent law review article on voter fraud, Developments in the Law, 119 Harvard Law Review 1144, recounts a number of instances:

"Examples from the 2004 presidential election abound. In Wisconsin, a voter turnout of nearly three million boosted John Kerry to an 11,000-vote victory — one of the nation’s closest contests — helped in no small part by the election results in Wisconsin’s major cities. Milwaukee, notably, boasted close to a 50% turnout, with over 277,000 votes cast. But a discrepancy emerged after election day, growing clearer in the days and months following: city records revealed fewer than 273,000 registered voters had actually participated in the election.3The ensuing allegations and investiga-tions in Milwaukee resemble others across the country with at least 16 states embroiled in voter fraud controversy.

"U.S. Attorneys who failed to prosecute voter fraud cases. The problem, they say, is that despite the GOP's insistence that such cases must be widespread, in fact they're almost nonexistent:" - Drum

You guys don't even remember one of your more famous hi-pitched screeching moments:

"The Diebold Memos' Smoking Gun
Volusia County Memos Disclose Election 2000 Vote Fraud

By Alastair Thompson"

So really then Bush did win in 2000, right? LMAO!

The idea that the USA firings were predominantly designed to shore up Rove's plan for crying "Dem voter fraud!" in 2008 is much too believable, particularly when you match his list of key purple states to the USA list.

Really, it's the next logical step for a party that's rapidly imploding and knows that a significant Democratic plurality is likely in 2008. I have to admire the Republican brilliance at brazenly accusing their opponents of the crimes they're committing or plan to commit. From Newt excoriating the Big Dog for his blow job while boinking his own aide all the way down to the planned 2008 Dem voting scandal, they are masters at this.

Act outraged enough, scream loudly enough about a (usually mythical) purse snatcher, and no one will notice your hand in the next guy's pocket. And the MSM can always be counted upon to obediently give "he says, she says" cover that doesn't bother to measure and compare actual instances of voter fraud and who benefits from it.

"Act outraged enough, scream loudly enough........." - shorty

They must have learned from the masters.

Hard to believe the left is now aghast that some attorneys may have been let go because of their failure to prosecute voter fraud, when just a few short years ago the left was screaming that nothing was being done about voter fraud.

"voter fraud.......in fact they're almost nonexistent:" - Drum"

Quote of the day.

Non-existent voter fraud and a POTUS candidate qualified because of skin color and up-bringing.

Kevin, you really are on your game lately.

I'm pretty liberal politics-wise, but this is something I disagree with. You have to show an ID for EVERYTHING, why not for voting? I mean, how can someone not have a valid picture ID?

Could it be that Republicans truly believe there is widespread voter fraud? After all, they know they engage in it routinely (NH phone jamming, etc., etc.). They may think "doesn't everyone?"

You have to show an ID for EVERYTHING, why not for voting?

I always have had to show either an ID or a voter registration card. Where do you not?

a POTUS candidate qualified because of skin color and up-bringing.

Golly maybe he's qualified because he's been a state senator and current US senator. How much foreign policy experience did W have? I know that Texas is "a whole 'nother country" but come on.

Jay

There's a significant difference between fraud committed by election officials (which the Republicans don't seem to feel is necessary to address), and fraud committed by individual unqualified voters. You might notice that the article you reference referred to "vote fraud," not "voter fraud." And your attempt to conflate the two is a clear indicator of your willingness to engage in deliberate onfuscation in an attempt to deflect attention from the facts. In other words, you are being deliberately misleading, and any further comments you make on this issue are not credible.

And tc, pulling one quote out of context from an article is also a little devious. You conveniently left out the first part of that paragraph: "On the one hand, some legislators likely will continue
to claim widespread voter fraud, drawing upon largely anecdotal evidence to support their assertions. Examples from the 2004 presidential
election abound. In Wisconsin, a voter turnout of nearly three million boosted John Kerry to an 11,000-vote victory..."

So first of all, we're talking about anecdotal evidence, a favorite tool of the Republicans. And one example is provided (despite your reference to 'a number of instances'), with no background as to the disposition of the case. But since we're cherry picking, perhaps we could throw in some more pieces from the same law review aticle: "The actual extent of voter fraud will always be in dispute. Not only can investigative findings be misleading as to the extent of fraud, but they can also dramatically overstate the actual impact on elections. Often where the battle over voter identification is most heated, real evidence of voter fraud proves scarce: in Georgia, for example, the Secretary of State averred that she had never encountered a single instance of voter impersonation at the polls. State laws might
sometimes impose tighter restrictions on in-person voting than on absentee ballots, which yield the greatest incidence of, and provide the easiest avenue for, voter fraud."

You might want to read the entire article next time before you cite it.

You have to show an ID for EVERYTHING, why not for voting?
I always have had to show either an ID or a voter registration card. Where do you not?

But at least 11 percent of voting-age Americans, disproportionately elderly and minority voters, lack the necessary papers.

Urban voters, particularly in the inner city, also lack driver's licenses because there's no need to own a car -- and, mirabile dictu, such voters tend to be overwhelmingly Democratic as well....

Huh, Here's and example of voter fraud that no Republican ever complained about.

What gives?

Why is it assumed that felons vote Democratic when so many Republicans are felons?

Here is a story on Griffin voter fraud program.
...During this period, Griffin also oversaw efforts to catch Democratic voters who might be improperly registered, especially in Florida, a key swing state. Through a process known as “caging,� Griffin’s team sent letters to newly registered voters in envelopes barring any forwarding, so they would be returned if a voter wasn’t at that address.
...BBC’s investigative reporter Greg Palast uncovered Griffin’s role in this practice that proved especially effective in “caging� African-Americans who lived in low-income areas or who were serving in the U.S. military. The “caged� voters would then be challenged by Republican lawyers when they arrived at the polls.
According to Palast and his BBC report, Griffin “was the hidden hand behind a scheme to wipe out the voting rights of 70,000 citizens prior to the 2004 election. Key voters on Griffin’s hit list: Black soldiers and homeless men and women.�
Palast noted that “targeting voters where race is a factor is a felony crime under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.� Palast said he attempted to interview Griffin, but the Republican operative hid from the cameras...

Voter suppression is the GOP approved means of vote fraud.

Urban voters, particularly in the inner city, also lack driver's licenses because there's no need to own a car -- and, mirabile dictu, such voters tend to be overwhelmingly Democratic as well....
Posted by: Stefan

Many states, including LA, issue picture, non-driver's license, IDs for a nominal sum.

Blessed are the meek, but they shall not vote.

Voter fraud may not really occur but that will be the allegation in the 2008 election. But the replacement of federal prosecutors around the country will enable the GOP to claim voter fraud in swing-voting states, and in minority areas. Rove has his wonk appointed as a federal prosecutor in Arkansas. He is in place to begin another investigation against the leading Democratic contender, Hillary Clinton.

Look at the states or the regions where federal prosecutors have been fired: San Diego, CA, an area with a large Hispanic bloc; Arizona, the same as the foregoing; Arkansas, where at least "Swift Boating" against Ms. Clinton will begin.

If Rove waited until 2008, the real reason would be obvious in that its attempt to compromise legitimate votes in the Presidential election of 2008. But now the set pieces are in place to challenge a Democratic victory.

For the record, the unhyphenated snickersnack at 2.44 was not me. First time to be namejacked.

What was said too is, well... wow. That votes cannot be checked is to put it in the most polite terms possible, absolutely and utterly obscene. In the words of a well known liberal, "Trust but verify." No faith in faith-based voting systems here.

From Newt excoriating the Big Dog for his blow job while boinking his own aide

It's worse than than, shortstop -- if memory serves me right, one of Gingrich's mistresses claimed that they only did oral sex, so he could claim they'd never had intercourse.

Brazen doesn't begin to describe it. Hypocritical does, though.

Many states, including LA, issue picture, non-driver's license, IDs for a nominal sum.

That's as may be, but if the "nominal sum" is required to vote, it's a poll tax.

ChrisO,
Nice catch, and you really caught me with my pants down, trying to sneak in anecdotal evidence. Why don't you send around the systematic studies showing that there's no voting fraud. Oh. That's right. You can't systematically study this. So you got to rely instead on....anecdotal evidence based on people who are caught and people raise allegations.

So thanks for the tip on reading an article. Here's one for you - after you read an article in its entirety, try thinking about it.

Is no one here even the teensiest bit bothered by the idea of non-citizens voting? There are few enough benefits to being an American citizen as opposed to a mere resident (legal or illegal), and it seems to me that we ought to hold onto this one — for our national self-respect if nothing else.

Does anyone here know what the voting procedures in (say) Western Europe are like? Do you need to prove citizenship to vote in Britain, France, Germany, Italy? Or, at minimum, demonstrate via photo ID that you are the person named on the voter rolls?

Is no one here even the teensiest bit bothered by the idea of non-citizens voting?

Do you have the teensiest bit of evidence of non-citizens voting?

ckelly,

Do you have the teensiest bit of evidence of non-citizens voting?

No, I do not. And so far as preventing actual vote fraud goes, making it harder to get absentee ballots and submit them does make more sense.

But . . . it still astonishes me that I can show up at my local polling place, give my name, sign the register, and never at any time have to prove that I'm the person I say I am, let alone that I am a US citizen. For that matter, the person on the voter rolls might not be a US citizen either — I sure didn't have to prove my citizenship when I registered.

It just seems to me that we are taking this right altogether too casually.