Thanks to the many readers who e-mailed me about today's Washington Post op-ed "The Myth Of Voter Fraud".
It's written by Michael Waldman and Justin Leavitt of the Brennan Center, which with ACORN recently tried to overturn a Washington state voter registration integrity statute. (More on this below). A critical reading of the column shows that it is full of inaccuracies and distortions. Its thesis that "voter fraud" is merely a figment of the conservative imagination is disingenuous in the extreme:
As Congress probes the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, attention is centering on who knew what, and when. It's just as important to focus on "why," such as the reason given for the firing of at least one of the U.S. attorneys, John McKay of Washington state: failure to prosecute the phantom of individual voter fraud.In fact, the actual reasons for McKay's and his colleagues' terminations haven't been revealed yet. As interesting as this subject is, its causal relationship to McKay's termination is still speculative. But the allegations about McKay are even more serious than failure to prosecute -- it's failure to even seriously investigate.
Then there are three loaded and misleading words: "phantom", "individual" and "fraud".
"phantom" -- means a non-existent apparition, as if there is absolutely no basis in reality for concern about election illegalities.
"individual" -- misdirects attention from the fact that there were also a lot of complaints about illegal activities by elections officials
"fraud" -- fixation on fraud is also misleading. The legal standard for fraud is imprecise, but a high burden to prove. The more relevant issue surrounding McKay is over the actual steps (if any) he took to investigate the many credible reports of numerous election illegalities that occurred on his watch.
Allegations of voter fraud -- someone sneaking into the polls to cast an illicit vote -- have been pushed in recent years by partisans seeking to justify proof-of-citizenship and other restrictive ID requirements as a condition of voting. Scare stories abound on the Internet and on editorial pages, and they quickly become accepted wisdom.There's more to election illegalities than "sneaking into a polling place", especially when most voting is done through the mails and when many of the illegal acts are performed by election workers in the back office.
But the notion of widespread voter fraud, as these prosecutors found out, is itself a fraud. Firing a prosecutor for failing to find wide voter fraud is like firing a park ranger for failing to find Sasquatch. Where fraud exists, of course, it should be prosecuted and punished. (And politicians have been stuffing ballot boxes and buying votes since senators wore togas; Lyndon Johnson won a 1948 Senate race after his partisans famously "found" a box of votes well after the election.) Yet evidence of actual fraud by individual voters is painfully skimpy.The writers have created for themselves a bulletproof standard with the words: "widespread", "wide" and "skimpy". They implicitly acknowledge that illegalities do exist after all, but no matter how many examples are brought to their attention, they can allow themselves to claim that the number is too "skimpy" to meet their unstated definition of "widespread".
Before and after every close election, politicians and pundits proclaim: The dead are voting, foreigners are voting, people are voting twice. On closer examination, though, most such allegations don't pan out.Gee. During the 2004 election here, the dead voted, foreigners voted and people voted twice. What difference does it make if some, or even most, such allegations don't pan out? Many cases of illegal voting have been exhaustively documented and corroborated with database records, ballot envelopes and other physical evidence, and election worker anecdotes. Enough in all to have conceivably changed the outcome of a gubernatorial election.
Or consider Washington state, where McKay closely watched the photo-finish gubernatorial election of 2004. A challenge to ostensibly noncitizen voters was lodged in April 2005 on the questionable basis of "foreign-sounding names."That was the stupid and futile move of a lone crackpot. It was widely condemned at the time, including by this blog. Fortunately, at least, it went nowhere. It was in no way representative of the serious and broadly supported efforts to improve elections integrity in Washington. Unfortunately, it's practically impossible to know how many non-citizens really are voting. There's no usable database that reports citizenship status. The only known cases of non-citizen votes were discovered after the voters cancelled their own registrations. How did those non-citizens become registered in the first place and were there other similar cases? We don't know, because there was no official investigation.
After an election there last year in which more than 2 million votes were cast, following much controversy, only one ballot ended up under suspicion for double-voting.Actually, that is only one ballot that the Secretary of State found. But you can't find what you don't look for, and as we've learned in the past, the Secretary of State doesn't always look very hard for election irregularities. Indeed, the SoS was only looking for people who voted twice through duplicate registrations. (and yes, his new statewide database seems to have significantly reduced the number of duplicate registrations) But he doesn't seem to have been checking for those who voted multiple ballots under a single registration. King County data records indicate that in November 2006 at least 68 people cast multiple ballots. The data suggests that most of the redundant ballots were rejected, but 14 were (unlawfully) doubly-counted. I haven't looked at the physical evidence yet and some might turn out to be false positives. And no, this wouldn't have been nearly enough illegal votes to call any of the 2006 results into question. But it does show that those who reflexively shrug-off claims about election illegalities don't try very hard to look for any.
A person casting two votes risks jail time and a fine for minimal gain. Proven voter fraud, statistically, happens about as often as death by lightning strike.The risk is more theoretical than actual. Yes, "proven" fraud, in the sense of criminal convictions, is statistically rare. But few credible cases are seriously investigated, let alone prosecuted, let alone go to trial. I've reported numerous cases of illegal voting to the county prosecutor and nearly all have been silently ignored. Lack of evidence? Try lack of resources and lack of courage. Election crimes are expensive to prosecute and the county can barely get its act together to go after car theft and other serious property crimes. Here in solidly Democrat King County, the liberal Republican prosecutor walks a fine tightrope and keeps his position only by avoiding provocation of the ruling establishment. The risk to his career from whipping up the hornet's nest of angry leftists if he goes after individual illegal voters (who can always play the "I'm too poor and stupid to know what I was doing" card) is very high and the pay-off from winning any individual case is modest. It's far easier for him to threaten to get tough on election crime than to actually do anything.
those chasing imaginary fraud are actually taking preventive steps that would disenfranchise millions of real live Americans.If there's any myth here, it's the myth of millions of voters who would be disenfranchised by election integrity measures. The authors, as noted, were behind the Washington Association of Churches v. Reed suit which sought to overturn a Washington statute requiring verification of personal information on a voter registration application before the voter can be enrolled. The plaintiffs produced exactly two voters, Lisa Oldham and Marina Petrienko, whom they claimed were "irreparably harmed" and prevented from voting by the state's enforcement of the statute . But those cases of allegedly disenfranchised voters were proven in court to be bogus. As I discovered, neither voter was actually eligible to vote in the election that she claimed to have been disenfranchised from. The state eventually filed a motion to supplement the record accordingly and the judge agreed. Ultimately, the plaintiff's case was based on the non-existent harm done to exactly 0 disenfranchised voters.
The WaPo piece concludes:
Prosecutors are not hired-gun lawyers on a party payroll. They have a special duty to exercise their power responsibly, particularly in the context of a heated election.Pressure on prosecutors to join a witch hunt for individual voter fraud is a scandal, not just for the Justice Department but for voters seeking to exercise their most basic right.If abused, yeah. But isn't it also a scandal when voters seeking to exercise their most basic right were frustrated by an elections office that negligently (if not fraudulently) counted hundreds more ineligible votes than the margin of victory? The responsible exercise of power in Washington state two years ago would have meant standing up to pressure from the overwhelmingly Democrat local political establishment to refrain from investigating. It would have meant investigating the non-citizen voters to determine the mechanism by which they were allowed to register in the first place. It would have meant investigating the King County elections office to determine why it permitted thousands of duplicate registrations, some of which voted twice, and why it counted hundreds of other illegal votes, including votes of unregistered voters and dozens of double votes that were marked as such.
Whether or not McKay's apparent refusal to investigate election illegalities was the reason for his termination, I'll have more faith in this administration if it turns out that that really was the reason.
(and a tip of the hat to San Diego blogger Matthew Hoy for the prelink).
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at March 29, 2007 01:40 PM | Email ThisSure, there was vote fraud and McKay simply refused to do anything about it; but the vote fraud issue is just one example of McKay's refusal to prosecute public corruption in Washington. Vote fraud is just one example of public corruption.
I don't recall a single case of public corruption prosecuted by McKay, and it it the #2 priority of the DoJ after terrorism.
And Stefan, have you read the public records request I delivered to McKenna's office; and have you looked at the file in WA SC Case No. 77345-9 - In Re the Recall of Gregoire? If you are really concerned with corruption in this state, you'd have posted something on it by now, or are you concerned it will implicate some of your friends in government?
Posted by: don on March 29, 2007 10:19 AMAnd #3- many of us are fed up with RINO Reed and his ineffectual enforcement of election law, especially as it relates to the Kingdom of Ron. McKay cannot show that he made any real attempt to investigate the 2004 election. Compound that with the past and continuing failure of King County to produce public records in a timely mnanner- and the coverup ( fraud, misfeasance, malfeasance and incompetence) that is the 2004 election continues.
The current legislature is moving legislation forward that will make honest elections even harder and will further restrict the citizen's right of intiative- all steps in the wrong direction. The local initiative to elect a KIng county elections officer is a step in the right direction- and I hope that all people who can legally sign and vote for it will do so.
Election law and conduct of elections must ensure that only those that are legal voters can register and vote, that only ballots that are properly and legally cast are counted, that ballot counts are as near perfect as possible, that the entire system has checks and balances and is capable of passing routine audits. We in this state, and King county in particular, have a long way to go to reach this standard.
Posted by: AnacoObserver on March 29, 2007 11:20 AMWhat I would like to see is an investigation into election fraud. Nationwide. Everyone having a fit about a couple of votes here, and there, but when thousands of people have their right to vote stripped from them by illegal caging lists, where is the same outrage? Where is the investigations of Florida, and Ohio?
The vote fraud issue may be a red herring to cover up the larger fact that almost every single electronic voting machine error favored Bush, or Republicans.
What is fair is fair. Fully investigate both, voter fraud here, and election fraud nationwide.
With "Loyal Bushie" prosecutors, it just ain't gonna happen.......
Posted by: Facts on March 29, 2007 11:28 AMNow put on some clothes and go upstairs. I'm sure Mommy has some lunch ready for you.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on March 29, 2007 11:35 AM"Michael Waldman is executive director and Justin Levitt is an attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/28/AR2007032801969.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
They are the ones who represented ACORN in the federal court lawsuit here in Seattle, where Judge Ricardo Martinez made the decision in August 2006 to strike down voter verification provisions in state law. ACORN then submitted 1,800 totally phony registrations to King County in October 2006, being enabled by this decision.
When the fraud was detected, ACORN settled the lawsuit under pressure from Judge Martinez in March 2007. The settlement requires verification of voters whose identities can't be found in driver's license or social security records, but allows additional time for voters to prove identity (as opposed to outright cancellation of registration if identity can't be proven in 45 days.
Justin Levitt was the attorney who represented ACORN in this local federal lawsuit. Here is the link to the settlement document, with Levitt's name to be found on Page 5 of the PDF:
http://www.atg.wa.gov/uploadedFiles/Home/News/Press_Releases/2007/Voter%20ID%20Stipulated%20Final%20Order%20and%20Judgment.pdf
Posted by: Richard Pope on March 29, 2007 11:38 AMMaybe it's time accept the fact Dino lost already and stop the conspiracy theories / blaming others.
Besides, if Dino had won I doubt Stefan or anyone here would give a rat's ass about voter fraud.
One hopes the GOP can find a decent candidate for 2008, since the they clearly have an early leg up due to Gregoire's ho-hum performance as Governor.
http://www.gregpalast.com/the-great-florida-ex-con-gamernhow-the-felon-voter-purge-was-itself-felonious
Posted by: Facts on March 29, 2007 11:47 AMJust how many news papers looked into the voter problems in both FL & Ohio.
and what was the answer. Damn the dems lost and THEY couldn't find anything. LOL
Keep trying though.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 29, 2007 01:17 PMDunno, why is Stefan only looking for voter fraud in areas controlled by Dem's? I don't see him trolling for voter fraud in Spokane Country. Does that mean it's not happening there? Unlikely.
Sure looks like partisan politics at it's best.
"We really don't have a history of voter fraud here." - Sam Reed
Uh, he lives in King County, and his blog is called "Sound Politics". Just a guess.
Plus, I don't remember seeing anything that indicated this was a non-partisan website.
If you like objectivity try HorsesAss. /sarcasm
Posted by: Palouse on March 29, 2007 01:57 PMShould that matter? It sure gives the appearance that Stefan is 'concerned' about Voter Fraud...but only in Blue area's of the state. If so it could explain why Judge Bridges, John McKay, FBI, & Sam Reed all rejected further investigation.
Plus, I don't remember seeing anything that indicated this was a non-partisan website.
I never said it was, I'm just answering the question @ 15. Given how Bush won Ohio in 2004/Florida in 2000 it certainly proves the double standard when dealing with allegations/conspiracy theories in relation to voter fraud.
Cato, you crack me up. I look at King County because that's where I live. I don't have the capacity to personally examine every other county in the state. As I've offered before, if you or anybody else wants to look for negligently counted ballots in other counties, I'll be happy to post your findings.
As yet, nobody has stepped up to the plate to take me up on my offer ...
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on March 29, 2007 03:32 PMHuh? There were widespread investigations into both Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004 by plenty of organizations, and Bush still won. Were you expecting Stefan to do vote fraud investigations in other states as well? If there was vote fraud in those states, we all oppose it there too, mmkay? Same goes for Spokane. If you have evidence of vote fraud in Spokane, feel free to post it. But the fact that someone who lives in KC doesn't investigate vote fraud in Spokane isn't evidence of anything. Especially when there was ALOT more suspicious activity in the last election in KC.
Posted by: Palouse on March 29, 2007 03:33 PMAs I've offered before, if you or anybody else wants to look for negligently counted ballots in other counties, I'll be happy to post your findings.
So then why would you expect the US Atty, and the FBI to investigate if your only contesting one County? Massive scale voter fraud would be a statewide problem would it not?
If you only focus on voter fraud in the blue Counties then it give the appearance of very partisan witch hunt and likely not worth the FBI/US Atty's time. Since you can't do the legwork to prove your case in other counties, why should anyone at a higher level join in the partisan crusade to discredit elected Democrat Party officials?
Funny how that ties in nicely to the Gonzalez firing of John McCay for doing his job not jumping in with this partisan witch hunt.
Of course the national Dem's are on their own witch hunt for Gonzalez's head so it all comes full circle in the end. =)
Such irony: The writers cite an example of organized election fraud that, with only the candiate's name, office and date changed, describes the actions of KCE in 2004...!
Posted by: Patrick on March 29, 2007 04:26 PMIt is possible that the Dem's infiltrated the "Red" counties, and messed with their systems too!!!!
I kinda doubt it, KC already knew how many votes they needed to "elect". They waited until all the other counties reported.
It is also concievable with the other counties all have "accountable auditors" (as in elected, not appointed) who really give a sh*t about integrity of their position, and like/need their job. Unlike King County.
Just some points to consider Cato.....King County is truly DIFFERENT than the rest of the state, but KC AFFECTS the whole state. So I guess we all have a dog in this fight, regardless of where you live in this state.
Posted by: Chris on March 29, 2007 04:28 PMRight now with the Valorie Plame scandal, Gonzales scandal, violence in Baghdad slowing but a proportional rise elsewhere in Iraq, 10 Trillion dollar national debt, and a somewhat flat economy is spelling disaster for Republicans.
We have to defend 21 seats in the Senate with 5-6 of them vulnerable rigth now. If the Dems manage to win the White House in 2008, they'll run roughshot over us.
It doesn't get better in 2010 as we have to defend 19 seats vs. 15 for the Dems in the Senate.
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm concerned if we as conservatives continue down this path not only will I not have a voice in national politics, but neither will our kids.
The last time we got sideways in congerss we were out of power for 40 years.
I hate to say it, but should the Republican Party start to abandon President Bush to save our future?
Posted by: right is right on March 29, 2007 04:43 PMThe situation we have right now nationally seems to be the most effective in stopping stupid laws from becoming active laws. I look forward to seeing Bush actually using his veto power rather than rubber stamping everything pork loaded bill that comes across his desk.
Good point. Maybe I'm just overreacting?
Posted by: right is right on March 29, 2007 05:11 PMA few reasons come to mind:
1. There was an actual investigation...something that never happened in King County
2. They were guilty.
But also remember that the special prosecutor said that their actions did not affect the outcome (as opposed to King County).
They were convicted of hand selecting ballots that wouldn't cause a discrepancy when examined. They should've randomly selected. Kind of like giving an IRS auditor only the checks that you know you have receipts for.
They did not:
"find" ballots. "lose" ballots. Illegally count ballots. Submit fraudulent elections data. Change the outcome of the election.
If they were convicted of a felony....what are the King County elections officials guilty of? Oh that's right, we'll never know without an investigation.
Posted by: drw on March 29, 2007 05:14 PMStefan, why is it your writings about voter fraud always come across as the card sharp in the Western saloon who says, "Of course someone's cheating at cards! I have five aces right here!"
I think you should count yourself lucky Mr. McKay didn't prosecute you for the voter fraud you keep insisting happened. Whining about how someone else cheated better than you did isn't exactly seemly.
(A better question about that election would be, Why was Dino Rossi so bloody incompetent he turned what should have been a 60/40 landslide into a squeaker? It couldn't possibly be because he listened to professional hacks from among the Pharisees, could it?)
Posted by: Laszlo Toth, Jr on March 29, 2007 08:16 PM1. Fighting vote fraud is bad, because it might disenfranchise minority and underprivelegded voters. (Puh-leez! How about protecting all legitimate voters?)
2. Those that commit voter fraud are the enemies of George Bush & Co. (Well, I guess we knew that.)
It's a pathetic article. Numbskulls.
Posted by: starboardhelm on March 29, 2007 10:15 PMThis is the funniest response I've ever read here. A hand-picked judge in a Republican county ruled in a civil case, that has a lesser standard for proof than a criminal case, that no fraud occurred. A Republican SOS and a Republican Attorney General did preliminary investigations and realized that there was no proof of fraud...and the outcome of that civil case confirms it.
You folks have NO logic, do you?
Posted by: Just Me on March 30, 2007 09:48 AMThat was a pretty piss poor refutation.
Michael Waldman and Justin Leavitt argue that there is little or no evidence of voter fraud nation wide. I recall that between 2002 and 2005 there were only some 50 federal convictions for voting fraud nationwide.
In all your blather you can only point to maybe one case of actual voting fraud in Washington. At best your other claims related to votes mistakenly counted by the election officials. And recall, that Judge Bridges found no evidence of voting fraud or intentional misconduct in all the evidence presented to him.
BTW, King County may have been justified in counting those 100 or so fatal pend ballots where the registration forms had been signed, even if not on the oath line. In any case, it was not clearly wrong to do so.
The Voting Rights Act provides that clerical errors if not material shouldn't deprive one of the right to vote:
42 U.S.C. Section 1971
"No person acting under the color of law shall . . . deny the right of any
individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any
record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite
to voting if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such
individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election."
In all your blather you can only point to maybe one case of actual voting fraud in Washington.How are you defining "actual voting fraud"?
At best your other claims related to votes mistakenly counted by the election officials.My other claims of illegally counted ballots were never examined in Judge Bridges' court, nor in any other public investigation. Without any investigation it's impossible to ascertain the degree of negligence.
BTW, King County may have been justified in counting those 100 or so fatal pend ballots where the registration forms had been signed, even if not on the oath line. In any case, it was not clearly wrong to do so.No, it was clearly wrong. The official procedure manual said that such ballots should have gone to the canvassing board. They did not. At a later meeting, the canvassing board ruled that a registration form where the oath itself is not signed is not valid. And what do you say about the fatal pends that were counted from the dozens of voters who didn't sign their registration forms at all?
I'm defining voting fraud as a violation of the state or federal criminal law regarding voting. By and large it must be intentional wrongdoing, not just a mistake.
Identify one specific case of fraud here and who did it. I don't believe you can. You yourself admitted that only one case of double voting was referred for prosecution by the Secretary of State. What specific vote are you specifically claiming was a crime?
Disqualifying those 100 or so fatal pends would have arguably violated the Voting Rights Act. In any case you yourself say that the Canvassing Board never ruled on them as illegal. You quoted the Republican member as saying that he would have required the signature under the Oath. I'd like to hear from the other members. So where was the intentional crime or fraud in counting those ballots and who committed that crime? Negligence won't do it for you.
"Democrat Candidate Who Voted Twice Loses Law License
From the local newspaper, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:
Ex-candidate to surrender law licenses
Riley, who voted twice, also to pay $10,000
By MIKE JOHNSON
Dec. 21, 2006"