In this post, I described the problem of "distributed vote fraud" and in this following post, I gave it that name. (If you missed those posts, what I mean by "distributed vote fraud" is the illegal votes cast by individual voters, acting separately, not illegal votes cast by a party official or a candidate. Our lax election laws make some such votes inevitable.)
Because these illegal votes are seldom detected, and the people who cast them almost never prosecuted, there are no good estimates on their total number in Washington state, or anywhere else.
I gave my own guesstimate on the extent of the problem in Washington state in the first post; in my opinion, somewhere between 1 in a 100 and 1 in a 1000 Washington votes are illegal. For a number of reasons, explained in my first post, I believe that that the illegal votes are about 2 to 1 Democratic. That would mean that a typical Democratic candidate in Washington state would have a net gain of somewhere between 1,000 and 10,000 votes from this distributed vote fraud.
Yesterday, I heard talk show host (and one time Republican gubernatorial candidate) John Carlson give his own guesstimate on the size of the problem. He said that, were only legitimate votes counted, Republican Dino Rossi would have a lead of not 42 or 45 votes, but 5,000 votes, in the race for governor. Carlson did not explain this, other than to say that he thought that many non-citizens were voting. If, like me, he thinks that illegal votes go to the Democrats by a 2 to 1 margin, then he thinks that 1 in 200 votes cast in Washington state are illegal.
Many Republicans are aware of this problem; almost no Democrats are, or at least will admit to being aware of the problem. (A few, of course, see it not as a problem, but as part of the solution.) Yesterday, I also heard talk show host (and losing Democratic congressional candidate) Dave Ross assert that no one was claiming that there was vote fraud in Washington's gubernatorial election. This shows, assuming Ross was being honest, that he doesn't listen to many Republicans.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(Those who are bothered by my guesstimate should read this disclaimer.)
Posted by Jim Miller at December 09, 2004 08:28 AM | Email Thishttp://www.adversity.net/florida/Frame_Fla_Stories/Florida_Felons.htm
However, in Florida, a felon has a life-long ban on voting, unless restored by executive clemency. In Washington, a felon can have voting rights restored more or less automatically one to three years after being released from prison, provided that all fines and restitution are paid. (A very large percentage of felons never pay their fines and restitution, even though this amount is often the minimum $500 allowed by law.)
I don't know what steps Washington takes to make sure that felons are purged from the voter rolls and stay purged. When someone is convicted of a felony, the superior court clerk is supposed to send a copy of the sentence to the appropriate county auditor, who is supposed to purge the voter registration (if any). However, I am not aware of anything that would keep the felon from registering or re-registering once they are out of prison, even if there rights have not been restored. There also does not appear to be any system to keep track of persons who were convicted of felonies in other states.
As for non-citizens voting, there is no requirement to provide any proof of citizenship when registering to vote. There is an identity proof requirement (either at in-person registration, or otherwise when voting the first time). However, almost any form of ID will do, and this ID (say driver's license or state ID card) is equally available to citizens, legal residents, foreign visitors, and illegal aliens alike.
It is anyone's guess as to how many non-citizens voted in Washington, since there is no obvious way to track this information.
Posted by: Richard Pope on December 9, 2004 10:06 AMFor one thing, you've got to have some cojones to do so knowingly. I'd be sweating buckets if I even thought of doing something illegal.
And if you're so dumb (or lazy) as to not vote properly, your vote shouldn't count! I admit...I'm lazy sometimes and I wonder if some of my votes in the past haven't counted. Maybe I forgot to date it or signed it wrong or whatever. But you know what? It's MY fault. So don't count my vote. Who am I to be so special that if I don't follow the rules I get to complain?
I'm sickened by this whole thing. I hope the Dems live with this shame for years to come in WA. My mom is feeling pretty guilty about voting for Gregoire now...as I hope most D's are.
Posted by: Megs on December 9, 2004 10:08 AMIf that is ever accomplished, and dems still win in this state, I will be seriously shocked.
Posted by: Julie on December 9, 2004 10:17 AMAfter two trips to the State Supreme Court ("You used the word 'and'!!! any sentence containing 'and' has two subjects!") either the legislature would pass something that appeared reasonable but would be abused in practice, or we might get something reasonable. Maybe.
Posted by: Al on December 9, 2004 10:32 AMNeither votes should count because there are two ballots...which one would you count? I just hope that both got thrown out. There wasn't anything I could do to stop her, but I wrote down everything I heard her say. Arg!
Posted by: megs on December 9, 2004 12:07 PMas long as we have the leftist MSM and we have the state legislatures controlled by the Democrat party, then there will be no changes in voting...why would they?....they have managed to control the state for so long now...
however, if we could district by district, retake the state legislature, and I think that is possible, fortifying the voting process should be a mandate...
what about a state referendum?.......can't imagine anyone not being in favor of making sure OUR citizens are the ones voting.....
Posted by: Lee on December 9, 2004 12:51 PMPopular opinion seems to be against Tim Eyman, but who else can do the things he's managed to do?
Posted by: Julie on December 9, 2004 12:55 PMWe definitely need security and authentication reforms before any future elections. What is so fantastic is that yet again, the screams and wails of the Democrats that every vote must count, will end up having backfired.
There will be much more scrutiny over future elections, and the losers will be the Democrats in that much of their strategy is simply to convince people how they should vote with rock concerts, youth rallies, church sermons, etc. A persuaded voter is not the same as a voter making the conscious action to vote for themselves. People who make the conscious action to vote will always be more careful about how they vote. And as a whole, they will likely pass the more secure future election safeguards.
The one real effort I know of to count non-citizen votes came after the disputed 1996 Dornan-Sanchez election in California. Congressional investigators found that 624 non-citizens had voted -- and that nearly 2500 were registered in a single congressional district.
Mark Rhoads is right that distributed election fraud is not new. I can think of precedents that are hundreds of years old. But I do think that it has become a much larger problem since the 1993 passage of the "Motor Voter" Act and similar measures.
Like Lee, I long have suspected that Gorton actually defeated Cantwell -- if only legal ballots were counted. The margin in that race is, you may recall, in the middle of my guesstimate range. There's an ironical detail: Cantwell co-sponsored the Motor Voter Act in 1993, when she was representing my 1st district.
I would have advised Gorton not to contest the election, however, because the cost, monetary and political, would have been prohibitive. That, to me, is the most infuriating aspect of distributed vote fraud. Often the cheated candidate has no realistic recourse.
As for Steve, I am hoping that he will raise the millions it would take to investigate the extent of this problem -- or join us in backing reforms to reduce its sized. And I think he should at least consider the point I make at the end of my disclaimer: Many Democratic officials act as if they believe that distributed vote fraud gives them a worthwhile advantage.
Posted by: Jim Miller on December 9, 2004 03:58 PM