Voter Fraud Deniers Resurface Just in Time for the Midterm Elections by Ben Shapiro 29 Oct 2014 The left insists that those who do not buy into its agenda regarding global warming are “deniers” – ignoramuses who refuse to acknowledge facts thanks to a political agenda. But when it comes to voter fraud, it is the left that lives in the realm of fantasy. Rachel Maddow, the heavyweight over at the pseudointellectual sewage tank of MSNBC – complete with nerd glasses for everyone but Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz! – says that voter fraud doesn’t exist. “The scourge of voter fraud,” Maddow writes at MSNBC.com, “is largely imaginary.” Her source for this extraordinary claim: a study by Loyola University Law School professor Justin Levitt, who claimed that he had found just 31 instances of voter fraud out of “more than 1 billion ballots” cast. Of course, Levitt’s study looked only at in-person voter fraud. It didn’t look at absentee voting; in the 2010 midterms, 15.6 percent of all ballots cast were absentee. As Philip Bump of the Washington Post acknowledged, “there have been examples of fraud, including fraud perpetrated through the use of absentee ballots severe enough to force new elections at the state level.” And the study itself looked only at active legal investigations into voter fraud – a dubious measure, given the lackadaisical enforcement of voter fraud generally. As Hans Von Spakovsky has written, voter fraud is quite real. In the Wall Street Journal this week, Von Spakovsky wrote: In the past few months, a former police chief in Pennsylvania pleaded guilty to voter fraud in a town-council election. That fraud had flipped the outcome of a primary election. Former Connecticut legislator Christina Ayala has been indicted on 19 charges of voter fraud, including voting in districts where she didn’t reside. (She hasn’t entered a plea.) A Mississippi grand jury indicted seven individuals for voter fraud in the 2013 Hattiesburg mayoral contest, which featured voting by ineligible felons and impersonation fraud. A woman in Polk County, Tenn., was indicted on a charge of vote-buying—a practice that the local district attorney said had too long “been accepted as part of life” there. In all likelihood, Obamacare would not be the law of the land today if not for voter fraud: the 60th Senate vote for that monstrosity came from newly-elected Senator Al Franken (D-MN), who won his election against Republican Norm Coleman by 312 votes in a race in which 1,099 felons allegedly illegally cast their ballots (opponents claimed that they didn’t do so purposefully, or that the number of felons voting was significantly less). Of course, Coleman wasn’t the only Republican to lose a major race thanks to voter fraud – in 2004, Republican Dino Rossi lost the gubernatorial race to Democrat Christine Gregoire by 129 votes, and more than 1,600 illegal votes had been cast, including hundreds of felons. The courts decided that since there was no evidence to suggest which way those votes went, however, they couldn’t give the election to Rossi. Political scientists Jesse Richman and David Earnest wrote in the Washington Post recently, explaining, “Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010,” a percentage “large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections.” Media members claimed that the results were skewed, and that incorrect response to questions about citizenship status played a role in those numbers. It is no coincidence that those most likely to suggest that voter fraud is purely imaginary are proponents of Democratic nominees. Maddow’s fellow MSNBC host, Al Sharpton, cheered on and even hugged voter fraud convict Melowese Richardson in March – Richardson worked at the polls in 2012 and voted both early and often for President Obama. Voter fraud has long been a part of American life – local elections throughout American history have fallen victim to various schemes by power players. For anyone to oppose common sense measures designed to stop such voter fraud smacks of friendliness toward such fraud.
It's easy enough to understand why Maddow and the like don't believe in voter fraud. In their mind American citizenship does not exist. There is only a current resident status and all that is required to prove that is showing up and saying, here I am. People like that are likely to vote overwhelmingly dem.
New O'Keefe Video Allegedly Shows Democratic Poll Workers Assisting Illegal, Non-Citizen to Vote in NC Conservative activist James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas is out with a new video showing Democratic campaign workers appearing to condone and assist an individual posing as an illegal immigrant to vote in North Carolina. In the video, a woman pretending to be an illegal immigrant from Brazil asks a number of campaign workers — many working for candidates running for law enforcement offices in the state — if she can vote, despite being an illegal immigrant. Each person the video shows her asking answers that it is not a problem. It is illegal for a non-citizen to vote, regardless of whether they have been inadvertently placed on the voter rolls. The State Board of Elections recently revealed that more than 1,400 non-citizens are on North Carolina voting rolls. The body stressed that it is “working to ensure that no ballot cast by a non-citizen will count in this or any future election.” It is also illegal for a person to knowingly assist a non-citizen to vote. Nevertheless, O’Keefe’s video appears to show that some Democratic campaign workers are more than willing to allow and assist non-citizens to cast votes in North Carolina. Watch: North Carolina is currently home to one of the tightest races in the country between Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC) and Republican state House Speaker Thom Tillis. A recent study about non-citizen voting speculated that illegal, non-citizen votes swayed the 2008 election of Al Franken (D-MN) and President Obama’s victory in North Carolina during his run for president in 2008.
If we had a legitimate DoJ they'd be investigating and prosecuting this shit. The integrity of our entire political process is at stake here.
The problem democrats have is that no one outside the media takes them seriously on this. It is patently obvious to pretty much everyone that democrats welcome vote fraud, provided they are the beneficiaries. It is a problem because it goes to the heart of the electoral process. If they are willing to corrupt that, what is safe? What's next? Trumped up criminla prosecutions of political opponents? Oh wait, they're already doing that. They are at least implicitly encouraging blacks to riot and loot anytime they feel like it. It is a recipe to turn us into venezuela or argentina.
O’Keefe Strikes Again - Watch how easy it is to commit voter fraud. Filmmaker James O’Keefe has yet again demonstrated just how vulnerable our election system is to fraud. A Pew Center on the States study in 2012 found that one out of eight voter registrations is inaccurate, out-of-date, or a duplicate. Some 2.8 million people are registered in two or more states, and 1.8 million registered voters are dead. So O’Keefe decided to take some of the 700,000 “inactive” voters the Voting Integrity Project says are on the rolls in North Carolina, the site of one of the nation’s most hotly contested Senate races, and see just how easy it would be to obtain a ballot in their name. Sadly, it was child’s play as his video demonstrates. “Some twenty times, nearly a bus load, we were just a signature or two away from voting. Of course, we never signed anything, but we could have, and if we had, we could have voted and no one would have been the wiser,” is O’Keefe’s depressing conclusion. But he did take some encouragement from the one time he was prevented from getting a ballot. Even though it is not required, election officials at one location wanted to see ID because it had been so many years since the voter on the rolls had shown up to vote. “They wanted to protect the system. They had to break the rules to do it,” O’Keefe said. He simply walked out of the polling place when asked for an ID, and is certain the incident wasn’t reported. Thankfully, North Carolina has passed a photo-ID requirement for voting — but it doesn’t take effect until 2016. Those who deny that voter fraud is a problem usually make two arguments. First, they say that whatever fraud exists is far more likely to occur with mail-in or absentee ballots than with in-person voter impersonation. That is true, which is why it’s regrettable that so few “deniers” are willing to support efforts to clamp down on absentee-ballot fraud. Second, they say that the low number of prosecutions for in-person voter fraud is proof that voter-ID laws designed to prevent it aren’t necessary. But we don’t judge the extent of a law-enforcement problem in any other area solely by the number of prosecutions. The fact is that efforts like O’Keefe’s show just how hard it is to catch someone. Nor is he the only one to demonstrate that. Last December, New York City’s Department of Investigation detailed how its undercover agents claimed at 63 polling places to be individuals who were in fact dead, had moved out of town, or who were in jail. In 61 instances, or 97 percent of the time, they were allowed to vote. (To avoid skewing results, they voted only for nonexistent write-in candidates.) How did the city’s Board of Elections respond? Did it immediately probe and reform their sloppy procedures? Not at all. It instead demanded that the investigators be prosecuted. The fact is that prosecutions for voter fraud are rare in part because the crime is so hard to catch, the level of proof required is high, the priority in filing such cases is low, and district attorneys are reluctant to pursue cases in which half of the ruling political class will be upset with them for doing so. Former Democratic senator Chris Dodd once noted as the last bipartisan federal election-reform bill was passed by Congress in 2002 that the goal of our laws should be to “make it easy to vote and hard to cheat.” Indeed, there is no reason why we can’t pursue both goals. Our clearly slipshod voter-registration systems, the millions of inactive or suspect names on our voter rolls, and videos like the one James O’Keefe has made should convince us of the necessity to take action.
Voter Fraud in Boulder An election official won’t allow monitors enough time to verify signatures. By Jillian Kay Melchior Denver — Boulder County Republicans and an election monitor filed suit this afternoon claiming Boulder County clerk and recorder Hillary Hall has refused to comply with election law’s transparency requirements, denying watchers reasonable access as they observe the count of mail-in ballots. “We’ve made significant changes to the way we conduct elections in Colorado, and as a result, it’s more important than ever that poll watchers have access and the ability to do their statutorily designed job,” says Ryan Call, state chairman for the Colorado Republican party. “Hillary Hall really stands apart from every other county clerk in the state in refusing to give meaningful access for Republican poll watchers to do their job, and it’s unfortunate that we’ve had to resort to legal action to compel the clerk to let our watchers in.” Seeking to improve voter access, Colorado’s lawmakers overhauled the election procedures two years ago, establishing a mail-in ballot system that critics say remains vulnerable to fraud. Before counting the vote, a bipartisan team of two judges examines ballots, verifying them by comparing the signature on each ballot with one in the state databases. Both judges must reject the signature for the ballot to be deemed invalid; only one judge’s approval is required for the vote to count. Though election watchers do not determine whether a ballot is counted or not, they do have the right to observe and later challenge that decision, monitoring “each step in the conduct of the election from prior to the opening of the polls through the completion of the count and announcement of the results,” the law says. But the lawsuit claims Hall allows watchers to view the voters’ signatures for only a few seconds, denying them “sufficient time and access to take even the most basic steps to determine whether a signature should be verified or to lodge a challenge as is their right.” Furthermore, the suit alleges, when an election judge raises concerns about the validity of a signature, Hall has unlawfully refused to let “watchers access the necessary information to determine whether the mail signatures that have already been called into question are in fact valid signatures,” claiming it could jeopardize voters’ confidential information. Finally, the lawsuit claims that “no election judge or watcher is even allowed to witness the receipt” of overseas or military ballots because “Clerk [Hall] has set up a system where only one employee of hers is allowed to access the computer used to receive the ballots. . . . This is particularly troublesome in that there is no way to verify that [such a ballot] has been received, accepted, and properly counted.” A spokesperson for the Boulder County clerk and recorder said she could not yet comment on the case, as the clerk’s office continues to review the suit. The attorney for the Boulder County Republicans and election monitor Michael Davis could not be reached for comment. As of Sunday, 1.1 million Coloradoans had already submitted their ballots, with 106,000 more Republicans casting votes than Democrats. Real Clear Politics reports that Cory Gardner, the Republican candidate for Senate, leads Mark Udall in the polls by 2.5 points on average, but the race is nonetheless considered close. Update: A Boulder District Court judge today has denied an effort by Boulder County Republicans and an election watcher to force the county clerk into allowing more transparency in the election process. The judge justified this decision, made without a hearing, on the grounds that insufficient notice was given to the county attorney, says Michael Davis, an election watcher and plaintiff in the suit. “It sounds to me like this judge is playing games,” Davis tells NRO. “The court must hear this, and the court is coming up with creative ways to avoid hearing this.” Davis says he and the Boulder County Republicans are still considering how they’ll proceed The suit alleged, among other concerns, that the Boulder County clerk was unlawfully preventing election watchers from observing the signature-verification process used to approve mail-in ballots. Boulder, a liberal Colorado city, is also a college town with high resident turnover. Some election monitors say they’re concerned that mail-in ballots may consequently be fraudulently submitted after being mailed to an address with out-of-date residency information.