A number of readers e-mailed about John Fund's article in today's Opinion Journal "Voter fraud in Pennsylvania? Gov. Rendell isn't worried"
Take the bill the GOP-controlled Legislature passed, which would require voters show a form of official ID or a utility bill; another bill would end Philadelphia's bizarre practice of locating over 900 polling places in private venues, including bars, abandoned buildings and even the office of a local state senator. City officials admit their voter rolls are stuffed with phantoms. The city has about as many registered voters as it has adults, and is thus a rich breeding ground for fraud.That sounds depressingly familiar.But Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell vetoed both bills last month
But no antifraud laws will work if prosecutors and judges don't crack down on election irregularities. Several tell me they fear being accused of racism and aiding voter-suppression tactics if they pursue touchy fraud cases.That sounds depressingly familiar too.
Meanwhile, this just in from Italy:
Fresh controversy was stirred by the discovery of a box containing 900 votes in a Rome street.[insert lame joke about Christine Gregoire here] Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 13, 2006 03:41 PM | Email This
It is clear that the "politics" of personal interest outweigh considerations of civic responsibility - from both parties. Fraudoire and the dims have shown no interest in even maintaining the perception of integrity. Puddin heads like sam reed are incapable or unwilling to stick their necks out to protect the interests of voters. All to often when Republicans act, the play the "go along to get along" game that might protect their backsides in the short term, but completely ignores our needs. Look no further that the wacky antics of those loveable knuckle-heads John "Who took my Strawberries" McCain and Russ "The Fuss-budget" Feingold so see that some people have no business getting anywhere near a ballot box.
Of course, it is demonstrable that democraps are completely driven by the lust for power and incapable of stopping their momentum long enough to even consider the impact of their (in)actions. It has become clear that unless and until they "feel the pain" in a personal way, they aren't going to do anything but play Dr. Feelgood. It is equally clear that the adherents to their political party are indifferent to the inequities of our flawed system. How many times have you heard one of the trollish ones exclaim "Payback's a b!tch!" as if that were a legitimate point of view (even if appropriate).
"Oh, you're just being a partisan" they will say. Absolutely I am. I proudly admit it. But that has nothing to do with respecting the rule of law. The results of several elections have been close, and there is every indication that they will remain close for some time to come. This means that elected officials should be eager to make certain that the process is reliable and transparent. I loved Hugh Hewitt's adage that "If it ain't close, they can't cheat", but we're bound to be stuck with close calls.
We need representatives that will stand up and declare their support for election reform - and I don't mean the silly game of charades that was dumped on us last time.
Trollish simps like jdb/biteme/bedwetter and bartleboob will ooze out from under the heaps of garbage that they call home and claim that "duh, dare ain't no vote fraud. You can't prove a thing". 1100 more votes than voters. I respect the ruling of Judge Bridges, but that doesn't change the fact that he is wrong. And that doesn't change the fact that vote fraud was committed in 2004 and was excused.
We get the government we deserve.... I don't know exactly what Washingtonians did to deserve fraudoire, but that's some heavy karma!
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 13, 2006 05:56 PMHave not voted another ballot,
Understand that it is illegal to vote if I am not a U.S. citizen,
Understand it is illegal to vote if I have been convicted of a felony and have not had my voting rights restored, except as otherwise provided by law,
Understand that it is illegal to cast a ballot or sign an absentee envelope on behalf of another voter,
I understand that any person attempting to vote when he/she is not entitled or who falsely signs this affidavit shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment of not more than 5 years or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both such a fine and imprisonment...
I guess these words are lost everywhere!!!
BTW, persons who follow the political news know of Karl Rove's recent lamentations about supposed Democratic voter fraud. (Insert raucous laughter here.) John Fund again carries the filthy water for a right-wing operator, at the expense of the Journal's long-suffering subscribers.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on April 13, 2006 09:38 PMFund has done more research on this topic and is more knowledgeable than any one else - I know alot of Demothugs are in denial and don't want to believe this and try to discredit Fund at every turn - part of the playbook of the left. More often than not, it has been shown that they are the culprits and documented evidence exists. So leftists, what do you have to say about this that is believable ? the truth hurts...
Posted by: KS on April 13, 2006 10:20 PMA little bit of responsibility and accountibility on the part of the individual is their worst fear.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 13, 2006 11:44 PMCertainly. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution defines citizenship, and forbids any State from denying a citizen his or her rights. Since each of us is assumed to be a citizen, the State must prove that a person who attempts to vote does not have the franchise. If the State does prove that a 'voter' did not have the franchise, that person has committed a felony, and must suffer the consequences. As Judge Bridges correctly noted, the State of Washington operates under the honor system; any person who claims citizenship gets at least a provisional ballot.
The United States has a long and shameful history of disenfranchising legitimate voters; it has no similar history of allowing ineligible persons to vote. Therefore, we accept a claim to eligibility unless we can prove otherwise. Disagree with this logic if you will, but it remains the law of our land, under our Constitution.
Correct. As Mr. Fund backhandedly notes, not all citizens register to vote. (He even claims that widespread registration shows evidence of fraudulent intent, in the American city synonymous with Liberty!) If a person does make the effort to vote, we assume that the person has the franchise. If we prove otherwise, to the rules of evidence in a criminal court, then we punish that criminal to the fullest extent of our law. Here in Washington state, we require much effort from a felon before we will restore to him or her (or him; most felons are men) the right to vote once again.
In Washington State in 2004, many felons did vote. The slovenly efforts of the (Republican) Secretary of State left the county registrars with no way of knowing who the felons were, and thus we had to credit these illegal votes. We learned in court that some felons had voted for the losing candidate, and that most of the felons probably had voted for him, so no harm was done-- that time. I expect that all ineligible felons will be prevented from voting in future elections. As my legal vote for Governor Gregoire was almost undone by the illegal votes of felons, I expect my elections officials, county and state alike, to do better in all future endeavors, and I will punish them if they do not. Never did I think that I would regret voting repeatedly for Secretary of Stae Munro, a fellow Scot, but the events of 2004 made his culpability clear.
WTF, do you have you head so buried in the sand, that you really do not know about Mayor Daley of Chicago?
When it was proven that every name found on a tombstone in a local cemetery was a registered voter.
All of whom had voted in 1960 election.
Some despite being dead for over half a century before the election.
At least, they were registered at their current address.
Voter fraud on the scale of King County is not a "new" story.
BTW, If Florida 2000 had claimed to find as many ballot/votes "after the polls closed" as King county did (KC:9 seperate dates and times, for a total of 1300+ ballots). Their case would have never made it to the US Supreme Court. Their case would have been dismised out of hand.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/04/democrat-mollohan-sees-assets-increase.html#comments
There's even a story from Sound Politics in the middle of the list. See if you can guess which one it is from the titles.
Posted by: pagar on April 14, 2006 11:47 AMJudge Bridges ruled that felons had voted for Rossi and Bennett. He explicitly noted that male felons-- that is, the overwhelming majority of felons-- would not have voted in large numbers for a sitting, female Attorney General. (Criminals simply do not support law-enforcement officials-- why do you people find this difficult to understand?) The plaintiffs in the case, who needed to prove that illegal votes had given Ms. Gregoire the election, did not even attempt to prove that so much as a single felon had voted for her. By contrast, the intervenors easily proved that felons had voted for Rossi.
Judge Bridges had no kind words for King County’s election office. He delivered some of the harshest criticisms heard during the entire election and challenge. King County has now run an odd-year election, with better results-- even while dealing with deliberate and malicious sabotage via abuse of the challenge statutes. (If you want election fraud prosecuted, demand justice for one who signed fraudulent challenges. Unless, of course, you truly believe that 320 Cedar Street, Seattle, was secretly located in Forks.)
Even after felons cancelled my vote-- due entirely to the sloppy efforts of Secretary Munro, the long-standing Republican Secretary of State-- the mendacity of Mr. Rossi’s supporters continued. Others among them requested that another fraction of my vote be removed from Gregoire’s total-- because felons had voted for Rossi at my neighborhood’s polling place. O, ye high and mighty, self-appointed arbiters of election justice, please explain to humble me the justice in that!
Posted by: Paddy Mac on April 14, 2006 11:55 PMWhat was the ethnic mix of the felons that voted illegally in the '04 election? What are the historic voting patterns of those ethnicites? What is the correlation of felon voters that voted for Kerry (a former prosecutor) vs Bush in the same election? Do you seriously think that a felon would not vote for someone who wanted to give them back their francise to vote automatically because she was a woman?
How many Lawskys voted from Joel Connelly like WI residences accross the state? How many thousands of illegally registered voters were dropped from the rolls only after the election?
The only one around here advocating for removing or weakening the ability of the people to challenge a government elections office that is not doing its job is you. Sad
Posted by: Just Wondering on April 15, 2006 08:48 AMBut he conveniently forgets another age-old adage - "honor among thieves". fraudoire made a mockery of Washington's AG office. Law enforcement - don't make me laugh!
democraps have a demonstrated history of supporting other democraps, no matter how corrupt or degenerate. Why should paddy-cakes change his/her/it's tune at this stage of the game?!
paddy-cakes - your averred humility ill becomes you...
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 15, 2006 10:12 AMNone of those questions have any relevancy, and Judge Bridges explained why. Thank you for demonstrating the ecological fallacy, the idea that we can infer from the overall population to the specific individual. A person who has lost the franchise differs from a legitimate voter in a fundamental way, directly relevant to voting (duh). We cannot estimate how an illegitimate voter acted by looking at how legitimate voters behaved. As Judge Bridges also noted, the four felons who most definitely voted for Rossi did so in polling places whose legitimate votes went overwhelmingly to Gregoire. Yet, the plaintiffs wanted those felons' votes subtracted from Gregoire’s total. Please explain the justice in that.
“Do you seriously think that a felon would not vote for someone who wanted to give them back their franchise to vote automatically because she was a woman?”
Judge Bridges certainly thought so, and said so, in explicit and unequivocal terms. He spent more time and effort studying that election than did anyone else, and he nailed absolutely everything else correctly, so I will believe his estimate on this point.
If felons so obviously prefer Democrats/liberals/women, why did the plaintiffs not present even a single piece of hard evidence to prove it? All they attempted was to show that a statisitical inference strongly suggested that some felons had voted for her, and even at that they completely failed, mistaking a fallacy for reality.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on April 15, 2006 01:00 PMSince in words of Carl Jeffers noted Democratic commentatory and leftist "You cannot trust a government that is solely controlled by one party legislative, executive and judicial to investigate itself." One must assume that no one is looking into the issues that surround voter fraud in the State of Washington and indeed the Democrats are probably covering up any evidence they may be presented with.
With the Ag's and SOS budget firmly in the hand of the opposition, nothing will be done. Make hay while the sun shines PM, your day is coming.
Posted by: Just Wondering on April 15, 2006 04:24 PMJudge Bridges did not claim that all five felons had voted for Rossi; one had indeed voted for someone else. (How about a catchy campaign slogan: “Of felons who choose to vote, four out of five choose Rossi.”?) If most felons did vote for Rossi, as Judge Bridges claimed, then we can safely say that Gregoire won the election by larger than the margin of error. Concerning supposedly invalid registrations, I hope that by now, every reader of SoundPolitics understands that claims posted here and claims proven in court tend to form mutually-exclusive sets. Do you agree that subtracting felons’ votes from legitimate votes makes far less than no sense? Do you agree that this would be a huge injustice, larger than allowing ineligible persons to vote in the first place?
“Since in words of Carl Jeffers noted Democratic commentatory and leftist ‘You cannot trust a government that is solely controlled by one party legislative, executive and judicial to investigate itself.’ One must assume that no one is looking into the issues that surround voter fraud in the State of Washington and indeed the Democrats are probably covering up any evidence they may be presented with.
“With the Ag's and SOS budget firmly in the hand of the opposition, nothing will be done. Make hay while the sun shines PM, your day is coming. “
Under the Fourteenth Amendment, voting rights are a federal issue. Federal attorneys can intervene in state issues concerning voting. I don’t often give money to candidates, and I never give money to parties, so I might be a little vague on the partisan thing. One party controls all of the branches of the federal government, right? Is that party covering up Democratic wrongdoing here in Washington state?
Oh, and thanks for the threat. Threats and abuse seem to form much of the discourse here. Does this indicate conservative moral superiority?
Posted by: Paddy Mac on April 15, 2006 04:46 PMWhen the change comes you will squeal like a pig..and no one will listen. Perhaps the Feds will look into this situation. Will you support it on the grounds of "good government" or be the first to scream "witch hunt"?
Posted by: Just wondering on April 15, 2006 05:30 PMI'd wonder what took them so bloody long, since the case for whatever SoundPolitics keeps making a case for is so obvious, right?
Seriously, do you really think that any self-respecting federal attorney will give credit to the 'evidence' presented on this blog, when a state court already dismissed-- with prejudice-- the very case filed to address this issue? This blog and it's commenters have the luxury of ignoring a court's ruling; government attorneys do not.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on April 16, 2006 12:47 PMSpeculation as to who would or would not have voted in a particular direction would have been irrelevant had Dean Logan and Ron Sims done their jobs. King County's inability to even hire an impartial audit team to help regain the trust of the people speaks volumes about character and integrity..or lack thereof.
Posted by: Just Wondering on April 16, 2006 01:06 PMFelons remained on the rolls because the Secretary of State's Office did a poor job of informing the county registrars. Once the Secretary of State started doing a better job, all of the counties could then remove felons from their rolls. Of course we should obey our laws; the failure of the Secretary of State's office to do so resulted in felons voting. These illegal votes of felons then gave Mr. Rossi the illusion of a lead on Election Night. Absent those illegal votes, Chris Gregoire would have lead the first count, the mandatory recount, and a third count -- if Mr. Rossi had decided thus to squander his party's money.
If you want to decry a lack of character, direct your ire at the lawyers who filed a case to overturn an election, based on nothing more than a fallacy, and the persons who paid for that filing.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on April 16, 2006 02:26 PMIf compliance was as issue, do you start with the smallest problem or the biggest? The issue was decided by partisan Democratic appointees and thier interpretation of LONG STANDING Felon eligibility statues. The fact that they did not WANT to comply on the grounds that THEY felt felons should have the right to vote, even if they had not met the criteria in the RCW's speaks to their motive and lack of verve in execution of their offical duties.
Of course the KC Executive, AG's and now Governors views on felon voting were well known and probably influenced their staff and underlings in thier interpretation and enforcement behavior.
Posted by: Just Wondering on April 16, 2006 04:05 PMThe only way the real truth of this matter will be unearthed is if there is a Federal investigation ordered by the US Attorney. This has not happened yet and is long overdue - why hasn't it happened yet ? It's hard to believe that it hasn't - it was shown that the discrepancies in the voter registrations and the thousand of illegal votes in King County should have triggered something. Has there been any followup with the US Attorney on this since last year ?
Our entire system assumes that a person who casts a ballot has the franchise, because voting is a right. An ineligible voter faces stiff penalties, which should act as deterrent. The plaintiffs did not even allege fraud in their filing, although their lead attorney, Mr. Foreman, bizarrely said that they would show that fraud had occurred. Hence, Judge Bridges' note that no evidence of fraud had been submitted.
The lawsuit effectively precludes any further legal action, even at the federal level, because of the forceful and unequivocal dismissal of all points by Judge Bridges. The plaintiffs asked for this result, and they have no one to blame but themselves for it.
Ask the 'prosecutors'. In King County, that person should be Norm Maleng. In Washington State it should be Christopher McKenna. The idea that these career Republicans are actively covering up fraud by Democrats seems rather implausible, to say the least. (The idea that fraud even occurred contradicts all of the evidence presented in court.)
Then again, the 'prosecutors' might just be doing nothing. I demanded the prosecution of those fraudulent voter challenges in 2005, and one of McKenna's staff attorneys told me flatly that it was Maleng's call. He hasn't done anything either. My days of voting for him have ended.
Posted by: Paddy Mac on April 16, 2006 10:33 PMA logically inconsistent and spurious argument. If you go along with the process as implemented by the 'Rat election officials of King Co., those felon votes were going to count no matter what. There was no "illusion of a lead". It was real. What was an "illusion" is the "victory" by Fraudoire after King Co. supposedly "found" so-called "missing" or "overlooked" ballots, what, eight or nine separate times during the so-called "recount", votes that were added into the total long after the polls had closed, basically putting more points on the board after the gun had sounded and the game was over and the players had left the field.
The Brainless One (Bridges) had nothing to do with that. His so-called "intelligent" and "reasoned" rulings did not address the one glaring, obvious fraud in the whole lousy, stinking election, and that was these so-called "found" votes, as well as the "enhancements" of already-cast ballots (like tabulating for Fraudoire a vote cast for "christine Rossi". Those "found" balloits and "enhancements" and divining "voter intent" is what manufactured a "victory" for Fraudoire. If there is an "illusion" of anything, it is that Fraudoire is somehow a legitimately-elected Governor.
Posted by: Interested Observer on April 17, 2006 05:53 AMHowever your previous points on how illegal voters voted seem to be missing some essential points. The reason, no one can determine how an illegal voter voted is because of the nature in how we vote.
This is by "secret" ballot. To do that all the ballots look the same and are only identified by number, which is only tracked back to the voter as having been issued and then received from the voter.
Vote totals, that are given/published, do not contain an individual by issue/candidate breakdown.
This is intentional to provide the required level of secrecy, as required by law.
What was done for case before Judge Bridges was, the Democratic Party found 50 felons (who admitted to voting illegally) and took affidavids from them on how they voted.
The Republican party did not do this, since they felt sure that no one would intentionally admit to voter fraud. Much less, honestly say how they voted.
Thus did Judge Briges determine, that these previously convicted felons, were a better sample of how illegal voters voted than the submitted statistcal analysis's by both sides.
So I say, nicely played by the Democratic Lawyer's. Of course, they knew how skewed their results were in those affidavids; when they submitted those affidavids.
Posted by: Mike P on April 17, 2006 12:29 PMThe central element that paddy-cakes conveniently leaves out of his/her/its narrative/delusion is that Bridges said that the statutes that predicated his discretion limited what remedies were available to him.
Bridges referred to the "six elements" to spell out a legitimate vote from a fraudulent one knowing full well that the level of secrecy that you describe would render any challenge an impossible hurtle to overcome. It is insurmountable because of limitations of statute, and I suspect intentionally because of democrap design.
This is what happens when dishonest people (democraps) defend dishonest activity, and honest people (Republicans) attempt to defend principle.
Posted by: alphabet soup on April 17, 2006 07:37 PMThis nicely much sums up why the political/elections system currently in place is pretty much doomed. You have a group of dishonest people in power (the 'Rats) who will take advantage of the honesty of their opponents (Republicans) to game the system in their favor so that no matter what the actual vote is, the 'Rats "win". They are using our virtue against us. When you have a group that holds power doing dishonest things and then defending that dishoesty by cheating, and the opposition standing by principle, the system as it presently exists only rewards dishonesty and cheating by allowing it to "win". Its the same lesson we learned on the schoolyard playground: when one team is honest and plays by the rules against another team that is dishonest and cheats, the cheaters always find a way to "win". The only solution is to throw the game out and replace it with an honest game overseen by honest officials who will fairly apply the rules to both sides. I don't think that is going to happen in SayWA without some kind of outside help (or people taking matters into their own hands).
Posted by: Interested Observer on April 18, 2006 05:49 AMThe five felons who voted did not ‘admit’ to it; public records showed that each (a) had a felony conviction, (b) had not completed the restitution required to retrieve the franchise, and (c) had indeed cast a vote in the 2004 election here. Once hauled into court, each had no reason to lie about whether he had voted for Rossi. (At least one felon had given a large donation to the national Republican Party, another fact obtained via publc records.) This is why Judge Bridges gave credit to their testimony; it agreed with all of the public records.
BTW, did SoundPolitics, or the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, or Chris Vance, ever demand the prosecution of these felons for having voted illegally?
Posted by: Paddy Mac on April 19, 2006 10:30 PM