No documented cases in Washington yet, but in Texas at least there are recent documented cases of voting by people who are not U.S. citizens
HOUSTON (AP) - Officials are investigating how at least 35 foreign citizens, and possibly dozens more, were allowed to vote in elections in Harris county.I suspect the only reason we haven't discovered any instances of non-citizen voters in Washington is because it is almost impossible to detect. It seems that our only defense against disenfranchisement by non-citizen voters is to hope it doesn't happen.One of those illegal voters was a 73-year-old Brazilian woman whose registration was canceled in 1996 after she acknowledged on a jury summons that she was not a U.S. citizen.
But the following year she was again given a new voter card, which wasn't discovered until recently. Records show that since 1997 the woman voted at least four times in general and Democratic primary elections, most recently in November.
hat tip: reader DKM from Oregon.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 16, 2005 04:37 PM | Email ThisIt seems that the common thread running through all these stories are the voter drives (Move-on.org?) that occurred last year.
I wonder if there will ever be an investigation?
Posted by: jaybo on January 16, 2005 04:49 PMAnyone who cannot produce a birth certificate showing this nation as the place of birth ought to have to show some proof of citizenship.
I'll bet that no teenager or twenty-something is asked to produce a birth certificate when first registering to vote -- much less older folks who clearly aren't too young to vote. A small bet, of course, but a bet nevertheless.
Any takers?
Posted by: Micajah on January 16, 2005 04:59 PMAnd, of course, it is one of those hot-button issues...
And that's that dreaded universal ID.
Everyone has a number. If you're a citizen, you have a number. If you're a non-citizen...well, it comes right up, doesn't it. Same with felons, dead voters, double voters, unregistered voters, etc. etc.
Posted by: SnoCo Voter on January 16, 2005 05:11 PMIt is also time for the courts to reclaim voter rights by annulling CGs illegal installation (her inauguration)...
Point is, we have ended up with plenty of (six?) close elections over the last decade, yet each one prior to this my chosen candidate has decided not to contest.
With two wins out of three on the record, and the number of proven (or at least admitted) illegal votes at 348, the courts should have no choice BUT annulment of the result IMHO.
Posted by: smegma on January 16, 2005 05:50 PMTake a look at the Everegreen Freedom Foundation's article, which I've excerpted below:
Secretary of State Improperly Certified Election
www.effwa.org
Perhaps this was posted here before, or in comments or linked blogs. It's hard to keep up, so please be patient if this is stale news to you.
According to the EFF article, 24 of 29 counties failed to provide all the information required by law. One might argue that counties not affixing the county seal (as many did not) should not be a big deal, but the following is a little more serious. Here'a a quote from EFF report. Note items 1, 2, and 3 at the end.
... quoting from the middle of the report:
On January 5, EFF requested a copy of each county's certified abstract of the recount in accordance with WAC 434-262-080. The documents provided in response were received January 11. The information was available on January 7, but EFF staff were informed that an attorney had to review it first. This legal review apparently occurred around 3 p.m. on January 11, after the legislature had certified the gubernatorial election.Not provided, however, was the "written narrative documenting errors and discrepancies discovered and corrective action taken." The Secretary of State says no written narratives have been provided by the counties which means one of two things: 1) counties are in violation of WAC 434-262-080, or 2) no "errors and discrepancies" or "corrective action" occurred.
Among the records that were provided:
1. Clark County - No sworn affidavit was provided. The county also did not provide the total number of active registered voters in all precincts; total of inactive; total number of all registered voters and the total votes cast.
2. Garfield County - No sworn affidavit was provided. The county also did not provide the total number of active registered voters in all precincts; total of inactive; total number of all registered voters and the total votes cast.
3. King County - No sworn affidavit was provided. The county also did not provide the total number of active registered voters in all precincts; total of inactive; total number of all registered voters and the total votes cast.
Seattle Times announces plan to cut up to 110 jobs
That was the headline on the AP article I saw in yesterday's King County Journal. Some excerpts:
... Times Officials have said the company's largest operating unit, the Seattle Times newspaper, lost $12 million last year and also showed a loss in 2003.
... The company has blamed its losses on the regional economy and on The Times' continued participation in the JOA [joint operating agreement] with The Hearst Corp., which owns the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Times officials say their paper has been hamstrung by the P-I's dwindling circulation.
I take no pleasure at all in anyone's loss of employment. I wonder whether the people who decide the direction of the Times and the PI have examined whether the selective way they report the news has alienated potential and former customers. The Times lost me as a long-time subscriber after their excessive and overblown Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo reportage, their non-existent investigation of the SwiftBoat claims, their preoccupation with Bush's ANG attendance, and their indifference to Rathergate.
Posted by: Boonie on January 16, 2005 06:47 PMImagine Thomas Shapley in the P-I doing anything BUT slow-dancing on a citizenship requirement for voting in Washington elections. He offers up two feeble improvements to election procedures (having nothing whatever to do with proving citizenship before enrollment as a voter), yawns, and calls it good. He's part of the problem.
This is something I've posted on before, with no answer. How, exactly do you propose that people prove they are citizens?
Drivers license certainly won't do. Lots of non-citizens have them, and they are easily forged.
Social Security cards, same problem, only more so.
Birth Certificates. Difficult to verify, easy to fake, and not all citizens even have one. Additionally, even a valid birth certificate doesn't prove citizenship. It only proves that at some time, the person was eligible for citizenship.
Military ID. Along with the problem that most people do not join the military, the percentage of non-US citizens in the military is greater than in the overall population.
The only actual proof of current citizenship is a valid passport. I don't have one, and even with over twenty years visiting many different countries, I've never needed one. (Navy Sailors on official orders or onboard ships in port do not require a passport.)
So, can you prove you are a US citizen?
Posted by: John Barelli on January 16, 2005 07:17 PMAsking for citizenship documentation is seen as un-PC. Banks now largely don't require it, police are told not to ask for it and even Bush now is relunctance to enforce the immigration laws much.
Also, I don't think universities can ask for immigration status.
There used to be a big split between the political parties on this. However, now each seems to be bending overbackwards to accomodate illegal immigrants. One reason is large farms need cheap labor.
Posted by: Erik on January 16, 2005 07:21 PMI only skimmed through that "EFFWA" report, so maybe I am missing something about their effort. Nevertheless, one thing I noticed is that EFFWA seems to be talking only about the official county abstracts of the second recount when noting that no narratives of errors or discrepancies were included in the documents sent to the SecState.
But, any errors or discrepancies such as "voterless ballots" would have been more likely to show up in the initial vote count abstracts, not in the first or second recount.
I wonder if EFFWA or any other organization has taken a close look at what the counties (especially King County, not to put too fine a point on it) included in their preliminary auditor's abstract and in their official county abstracts for the initial vote count. Did they find no discrepancies in the numbers of ballots issued in each precinct compared to the number of ballots cast or spoiled; and no discrepancies in the numbers of ballots cast compared to the number of voter signatures in the precinct books?
If "voterless ballots" and "ballotless voters" were going to be noticed as discrepancies during the required reconciliation of those numbers for each and every precinct prior to certification of the county's vote count by the canvassing board, it would have been during the initial vote count -- not the first or second recount.
Does anyone know anyone who knows someone who has done that careful examination of the initial efforts to reconcile the precinct numbers?
Posted by: Micajah on January 16, 2005 07:38 PMHmmm...Let's see here....
1.Dead citizens voting.....
2.Live citizens voting twice.....
3.Unknown citizens voting Provisional....
4.Felons voting......
5.Felons printing and sorting Ballots.....
6.Felons writing and maintaining election software...
7.Ballots found in election workers bag, found in the bottom of ballot collection boxes, found in Alaska, found...Heck! Over 10,000 ballots were found before the first certification and no one has said where they came from!....
8.Thousands of ballots were (illegally) permanently altered by election workers divining voter intent...
9.More ballots counted than voters submitted.....
(And this is just the *good* news! )
Yep! I'd say non-citizen voters fit right in with the Washington State elections..
On #8) 55,000 ballots(last total I read about) "enhanced" by the professional "ballot enhancers" during this election. I could make the case about how they were enhanced, but I am sure the State has paid for "ballot enhancement training" which would preclude any irregularities from popping up (unless the felons of software fame were the instructors)...
Need we say more?
Posted by: smegma on January 16, 2005 08:01 PMBirth Certificates. Difficult to verify, easy to fake, and not all citizens even have one. Additionally, even a valid birth certificate doesn't prove citizenship. It only proves that at some time, the person was eligible for citizenship.
So, can you prove you are a US citizen?
That's not quite accurate, John.
Amendment XIV of the U.S. Constitution states in part:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html
While it is true that a birth certificate or naturalization papers can be forged, and it is true that the person must still offer some indication that he or she is the person named in those documents, it is also true that the birth certificate or naturalization papers are the foundational documents needed to prove citizenship.
I don't think there is any significant issue about people who, as you state it, were eligible for citizenship at one time. It is a birthright for those born here. For those who are naturalized citizens, I imagine most of them hold those naturalization documents as most dear.
If there are a few exceptions to the rule, that is, people who for some reason have lost their right to be citizens of the U.S. despite being born in the U.S. or being previously naturalized, I doubt that their numbers are great enough to be a problem when it comes to having a voter registration process with some integrity.
As for people who have no birth certificates -- they are now very rare. When the Social Security program went into effect in the 1930's,
many people had to get the state of their birth to issue birth certificates to them decades after their births. Some of my aunts and uncles did so.
Nowadays, who doesn't have a birth certificate showing his or her birth in this country? The answer in virtually all cases is: people who weren't born here.
Just to validate your comment:
"For those who are naturalized citizens, I imagine most of them hold those naturalization documents as most dear."
My wife, a naturalized citizen, has a safety deposit box just for that document.
John Barelli,
Forgeries can be rendered minimal through several steps. What those steps are is dependent on the documents. If we are dealing with Birth Certificates, uniformity must be established (I know, State rights and such preclude the feds from making such rules)...so now what?
My stepson has a birth certificate which looks nothing like mine. The fascinating thing is, my birth certificate is more recent than his (I lost my original 3 years ago)...
We've made it too easy to register and consequently illegals have access to the voting booth. The rolls have been polluted. Tighten up on the ability to register and we will have cleaner elections.
Posted by: Susu on January 16, 2005 08:57 PMThe part about "eligible at one time" applies to those with dual citizenship or those who have given up their citizenship, although I agree, it isn't a major problem. The same is true of those with no valid birth certificate, although it still happens, which is why Social Security will take other types of records.
Unverifiable (and fake) birth certificates are a much more difficult problem. Since they never were really intended as a citizenship document, there are limited safeguards against fake ones. Also, we're putting in another obstacle to many lawful voters.
I, myself would have to send off for a certified copy of my birth certificate, as I assume that a simple photocopy would not suffice. That would require a couple of weeks, and about twenty dollars. I presume that you would not want to have the state pay for the research, which would cost far more.
Now, if we were talking about a privilege, something like renting a video, I'd have no problem. I don't have a right to rent videos from Blockbuster, so they can put on whatever restriction they want. They own the videos.
I do have a right to vote. I would go further and say that I have an obligation to vote, although many of my fellow citizens don't see it that way. It is up to the state to show that I am not a citizen, rather than mine to show that I am.
Sworn statement, under penalty of perjury, fine. Either show a state-issued identification or provide a signature and thumbprint, quite reasonable.
But my vote is not a privilege, and the state has no right to deprive me of it without due process. So, in essence, if they can't prove that I'm not a citizen, and in the absence of overwhelming evidence that I am not, it must presume that I am.
In essence, if the state has reasonable cause to suspect that I am not what I say I am, then they are welcome to investigate, at their expense. If they find that I have lied in my sworn statement, then there are appropriate actions to take.
Again, remember that homeless veteran with the "will work for food" sign. He is a citizen, and has a right to vote. No one has the right to deprive him of it, or even restrict his access to it. Not even to make him pay $20 for a birth certificate in order to vote.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 16, 2005 09:11 PMIf anyone thinks this "thing" of illegal immigrants doesn't need to be addressed in toto, just ask our friend Rep. David Dreier. He had a dem opponent who raised that one issue. She was a lefty wacko, BUT she hit upon a major red-button issue and pained David as being soft on the issue. He had a much tighter race than any 24-year Congressman deserves...
Do we have the same problem here? Maybe not to the degree as in Dreier's district, but it IS a problem. From my compound in SnoCo, I can drive less than 5 miles and see a new industry virtually erupting: to serve the Hispanic community. Now I'm NOT saying they are ALL illegal...and I'm definitely NOT a racist. But do we have a problem? Perhaps. We need to do something...at least investigate.
And by all means, get rid of the damned motor voter program. Motor voter just makes it too easy to register. After all, if you can get a DL, you MUST be eligible to vote. Right? It's just another invitation to fraud...
Posted by: SnoCo Voter on January 16, 2005 09:33 PMSomething else I've noticed is the overlooked item... that voting is not a right!
I refer you to the Constitution of the State of Washington, Article 1, Section 19: FREEDOM OF ELECTIONS. All Elections shall be free and equal, and no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage. (emphasis added.)
If you are referring to the fact that the United States Constitution does not specifically spell out the right of all citizens to vote, you are correct. That is left to the various states to decide. We can debate the wisdom of that on another thread.
I completely disagree. What are you talking about?
"It is up to the state to show that I am not a citizen, rather than mine to show that I am."
What have you been smoking? You think that it's the STATE'S responsibility to establish your citizenship qualifications (or lack thereof) rather than yours? What other responsibilities do you wish to shirk off to the state?
I'm sorry that you think it SOOOO difficult to get a copy of your birth certificate. I just ordered mine last month ($12 for two official long-form copies with raised seal the county). I mailed away to DuPage County in Illinois and received them the following week. For some larger counties it probably takes two weeks. Most counties do not require research unless your birth certificate is over 75 years old.
You want to get a passport? You need your birth certificate. You want to go to Vancouver, BC? You need your passport...or birth certificate.
A birth certificate with a raised seal from a county within the United States is absolutely regarded as proof of citizenship. Presenting it in order to register to vote should be the first requirement.
If a person has gained citinzenship through other means they will have the paperwork. And I dare say, those people are not likely to lose that paperwork.
Why do you think the state should be responsible for this? That's crazy. As you state yourself - for the state to do the research would cost FAR more. In other words, the state will never do any research and everyone will be able to vote, citizen or not, under your scheme.
I think that voting is a privilege, not a right. Many people do not have that privilege. You must earn this privilege - by being a US citizen, turning 18, not going to jail, etc.
Posted by: Larry on January 16, 2005 09:37 PMVoting is a right.
The question is: Who has that right?
John says: "Prove that I don't."
You (and I) say: "People who claim to have the right to vote ought to offer proof that they are who they say they are."
If we go with John's plan, there are no barriers at all to voting. It's plain that our bureaucracy couldn't handle even a tiny fraction of the job of proving that the Johns of this country don't have the right to vote.
I cannot accept as reasonable the idea that people shouldn't be required to offer evidence that they are who they say they are -- and that who they say they are is a person who has the right to vote.
We need to prove our identity for so many other things we do, that it seems a small thing to require.
And, if we don't require it, then the right to vote becomes a right to engage in a Social Darwinist competition to see who can vote the most times in one election without getting caught. If you don't enter that competition as a matter of principle, then in John's system you will always lose.
I'd rather not have to compete on those terms.
Posted by: Micajah on January 16, 2005 09:53 PMI think that voting is a privilege, not a right. Many people do not have that privilege. You must earn this privilege - by being a US citizen, turning 18, not going to jail, etc.
The Constitution of the State of Washington disagrees with you. Again, "no power, civil or military, shall at any time interfere to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage. Please note, it is specifically called the right of sufferage. As a citizen of the state of Washington, I have the right to vote. This right may be removed by a jury of my peers, just as my right to freedom can be. It cannot be removed by the state.
If you disagree, you are welcome to suggest an amendment, removing the right of Washington citizens to vote, and I will be welcome to join the many people marching on Olympia in protest of the very idea. You think people are mad about this Governor's race. Just try taking away my right to vote!
Now, I'm a big fan of trying to see the other side's position, and looking for ways to solve the legitimate problems pointed out. So, how can we put safeguards against non-citizens voting that will not restrict the rights of citizens?
Personally, I suspect that simply requiring either picture ID or a thumbprint will prevent almost all non-citizens from voting. Illegal immigrants will not want to take the risk of detection and deportation, legal immigrants will not want to risk losing their legal status and chance for citizenship. For those that violate the law, prosecution and deportation.
I'm open for other suggestions as well. But, understand that the suggestion that Washington citizens do not have the rights specifically spelled out in our Constitution, well, "them's fightin words, pahdner."
Posted by: John Barelli on January 16, 2005 10:00 PMAgreed. One cannot take the right of suffrage from a person without due process.
Picture ID is my idea of a proper standard. How is it that a utility bill mailed to the registrants' home of record becomes proof? Never understood that...
Posted by: smegma on January 16, 2005 10:22 PMAnd, if we don't require it, then the right to vote becomes a right to engage in a Social Darwinist competition to see who can vote the most times in one election without getting caught. If you don't enter that competition as a matter of principle, then in John's system you will always lose.
Let's look at the situation, and what we can do to solve (or at least very substantially reduce) the problem you're describing.
First, we can find ways to prevent multiple voting by one individual (citizen or not.) We can do that by requiring either a valid, state-issued id or a sworn statement with a thumbprint.
What else can we do that would not interfere with the right of a legal citizen to vote? We could cross-index the registration rolls with the immigration and naturalization service. That's a computer check, and should be both cheap and effective in deterring non-citizen immigrants from registering.
What to do about illegal immigrants. This is harder, as they are, by definition, criminals. Again, the requirement to provide identification or a thumb print should deter almost all.
Would some get through anyway? Perhaps a very few. But, I suspect that fraudulent IDs and fake birth certificates will be a far larger problem.
Again, the state does not have the resources to check on those birth certificates (it would take the same investigation to verify a birth certificate provided by a registrant as to just order one,) so they become an obstacle to those that obey the law, but not for those deliberately trying to cheat. I could print one on my home computer that would fool anyone.
So, no, I don't think that's a good idea. Perhaps if we ever go to a national identity card, that problem will be solved, although many people (from both sides) oppose that. But that's an argument for another day.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 16, 2005 10:24 PMI for one would not vote if I had to give a scan or thumprint, even though my worst/only offence was a single speeding ticket. The thumbprints would eventually go into a database which would eventually be national. That idea scares me since the database wouldn't be open for public inspection/accountability.
Posted by: VaCSProf on January 16, 2005 10:26 PMBut, John, what evidence of identity and citizenship would need to be offered to get the photo ID that you suggest ought to be used to identify eligible voters?
A flaw in the system, no doubt. Unfortunately, I see no reliable method of verifying citizenship (including the use of birth certificates) other than a national ID card. This raises problems with privacy advocates, conservatives, liberals, Libertarians and God only knows who else. I admit to being a bit uneasy about the idea myself.
The current state-issued IDs are a flawed system, but they're what we've got to work with, and will prevent most of the fraud.
Perhaps the best we will be able to do is to significantly reduce the problem. The cost to completely eliminate it (both in dollars and in our rights as citizens) may simply be too high.
I can't say I'm happy with that answer, though.
Posted by: John Barelli on January 16, 2005 10:49 PMWhat about an independent auditor (or better yet, two: one R and one D) that would get a "bounty" for every illegal voter found? The bounty could be fined to the illegal voter. This would 1.) create an incentive to find every illegal vote, and 2.) create a disincentive to illegally vote since its subject to scrutiny.
The main elements of a solution emerging from the discussion are a) creating a reliable state-wide voter registration setup, already mandated and needing to be put in place by the SOS, b) enforcement with stiff penalties to deter fraudulent voters from abusing the system, and c) provision for those who lack a place of residence to establish their precinct status as legitimate.
Once the database is operating, most of the abuses now occurring will be curbed. Recall that KING 5 TV's 1998 investigation uncovered 5,200 double registered voters using available data. A good database should even lead to cross checks between states, if such reasonable items are included as name, age, sex, and residence. The problem of multiple residences in different states poses an additional problem, but one that seems solvable in cases of suspected fraud--if genuine concern is present to uncover double voters. Again, this is because 95% are law-abiding and the other 5% can be discouraged from law-breaking. How serious are they to vote twice? It's time to find out!
Posted by: RLG on January 17, 2005 11:39 AMAfter all, each vote cast in error dilutes eligible votes, every one of which should be accurately counted.
Posted by: Paul on January 17, 2005 03:19 PMWhy? What makes you think both votes would be cast by the registered voter?
Posted by: supercat on January 17, 2005 07:52 PM